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

[RoboDad]

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.

No, it does not. The fact that you cannot even see this simple point shows that you are beyond reason, and this conversation is at an end.

 

[devilof76]

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.

You need to learn the difference between persuasion and coercion. Anyone undertaking to trade with another is looking to get the most they can for the least. Whoever has the most to offer is in a superior position of purchasing power over the rest, and he is in that position at no expense to them. It may be to their disadvantage; it's not at their expense. If the power was once theirs, and is no longer, then maybe they shouldn't have spent it. Either way, there is no injury they can claim against the one with more statues to sell, or more money to buy them.

Live and let live implies only that you will live by your values, and you will allow others to live by theirs. If they cannot live by their rules in dealing with you, then it is incumbent upon them to not deal with you. If they do, and necessarily compromise themselves, it is not your problem--you are not the cause--it is theirs and theirs only. I fail to see how any type of coercion follows.

And really, coercion is the only thing that 'live and let live' seeks to prevent. It is not a guide for living your own life; it is a guide for living your life in the presence of other people, i.e. society.

The only thing that would violate such an agreement would be for someone to make a law prohibiting scalping, which like all such laws, is an attempt to force people to live by rules other than the rules by which they have chosen to live their lives.

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.

Then the Golden Rule can shove it. That which does not profit dies. Sheds some light on the horror that was the Middle Ages, huh?

What you again fail to see is that buyers willing to pay a premium are not taking a loss. This notion of equality you have has no place on earth. Or anywwhere in nature, for that matter. You're just going to have to wait until you die and go to heaven. Sorry.

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.

Human beings cannot survive by Jesus' moral code. That is why when they stopped attempting to practice it on earth, earth became, not only infinitely more livable, but infinitely more survivable.

 

[Blackthornone]

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.

It may or may not have sold out long before you had a chance to buy one. If the scalpers hadn't bought them up, they might very well have still been available. Furthermore, even if only true collectors had bought them and weren't willing to sold them, and you missed out, that is fine. They had enough passion for the piece or luck to be there to get it, and you didn't. The important thing is that they got into collectors hands and no one had to pay more than they should have. No offense, but what makes you, me or anyone else more deserving of a piece if we missed out to other true collectors who got one before us? NOTHING. In fact, they got it, and they deserved it more than you or me. That's the way it goes. Just because people have more money doesn't make them more deserving of having something than someone else, IMO. To me, the one who deserves something most should be the one who has the most love and passion for it. An analogy is that people should always marry for love and never for money. There are a lot of rich guys who can't drive well, yet they have the money to buy a great car and wreck it. I think that was a waste. A great car was wasted on a rich talentless unworthy driver. If true collectors miss out on a piece because too few are made, than that is SSC fault.

As far as universalizing is concerned, isn't universalizing asking what would happen if everyone did a certain thing? What else did you mean?

 

[Blackthornone]

No, it does not. The fact that you cannot even see this simple point shows that you are beyond reason, and this conversation is at an end.

Yes, it does. What else do you mean by wrong? Wrong for what? Wrong is often about application. There are in fact all kinds of wrong.

 

[TOE]

Hilarious, ain't it?

hilarious and sad

 

[hardcoregunr]

this thread is really rich..

what a treat!

 

[devilof76]

Yes, it does. What else do you mean by wrong? Wrong for what? Wrong is often about application. There are in fact all kinds of wrong.

Morally wrong, genius. What the hell have we been talking about for two pages?

 

[Blackthornone]

You need to learn the difference between persuasion and coercion. Anyone undertaking to trade with another is looking to get the most they can for the least. Whoever has the most to offer is in a superior position of purchasing power over the rest, and he is in that position at no expense to them. It may be to their disadvantage; it's not at their expense. If the power was once theirs, and is no longer, then maybe they shouldn't have spent it. Either way, there is no injury they can claim against the one with more statues to sell, or more money to buy them.

Live and let live implies only that you will live by your values, and you will allow others to live by theirs. If they cannot live by their rules in dealing with you, then it is incumbent upon them to not deal with you. If they do, and necessarily compromise themselves, it is not your problem--you are not the cause--it is theirs and theirs only. I fail to see how any type of coercion follows.

And really, coercion is the only thing that 'live and let live' seeks to prevent. It is not a guide for living your own life; it is a guide for living your life in the presence of other people, i.e. society.

The only thing that would violate such an agreement would be for someone to make a law prohibiting scalping, which like all such laws, is an attempt to force people to live by rules other than the rules by which they have chosen to live their lives.



Then the Golden Rule can shove it. That which does not profit dies. Sheds some light on the horror that was the Middle Ages, huh?

What you again fail to see is that buyers willing to pay a premium are not taking a loss. This notion of equality you have has no place on earth. Or anywwhere in nature, for that matter. You're just going to have to wait until you die and go to heaven. Sorry.



Human beings cannot survive by Jesus' moral code. That is why when they stopped attempting to practice it on earth, earth became, not only infinitely more livable, but infinitely more survivable.

Trading does not necessarily mean inequity. It could simply be an even exchange, somewhat like bartering. Yes, profiting from another is inherently unethical, but I am talking about unnecessary profit.

Your definition of Live and let live is not ethical. What if someone had all the food and forced people to pay what he wanted or they would starve to death. After all, it wouldn't be like he was coercing people to buy food from him, right?

You were the one who suggested that the Golden Rule was strictly a middle ages, or dark ages notion. I said that people never followed it, so it isn't like it was ever given a fair chance to promote ethics.

Of course buyers willing to pay a premium are taking a loss. They are losing more money than they would if they were able to pay the original price. You could say that the original price evaporated when the scalpers bought up the supply, but that would be avoiding admitting the scalpers responsibility for that.

Yes, Human beings can survive by Jesus moral code, Ie The Sermon On The Mount. It's just that a lot of people are too corrupt or lazy to do it. It would prevent people from getting away with or practicing unethical things, and so bad people or people with bad or unethical intentions would find such a proposition unacceptable, because it would prevent them from being able to being able to prey on others.

 

[xr6.turbo]

Someone post MJ eating popcorn

 

[Blackthornone]

Morally wrong, genius. What the hell have we been talking about for two pages?

We have been talking about wrong, as in what contradicts or conflicts with the optimum function of the universe. Anything that conflicts with optimum function is wrong, because it falls short of what is absolutely right, or is the ideal. That is only logical. In my example of the cauliflower, if you were to eat when you were full, that would mean ingesting excess calories, or over stressing the body, which would be to unnecessarily damage the body, which would be to abuse it, which would be morally wrong, if you want to use the word moral. If the cauliflower is wrong for you, than it might be because you are allergic, and thus to eat it would be to damage the body, which again, would be morally wrong. If it is wrong for you not to eat the cauliflower, it might mean that by denying eating it, you deny proper nutrition to the body, allowing it to deteriorate, which again, would be something morally wrong with you for not eating it, because the attitude of not eating it results in the morally wrong result of deteriorating the body.

Scalping collectibles is morally wrong, in part because it forces people to pay more for something that inspires them and causes them to feel better, which helps them to emotionally be better able to get through life. This additional money deprives them of money they could have used for something else which would have brought them more inspiration, or simply have bought food, or something for their families, which in turn, would have given their families a much better quality of life.
I am an idealist who thinks that everyone should have the highest quality of life possible, and NO ONE has the right to "improve" their own quality of life at the expense of another person's quality of life, particularly an excessive expense, ie making people pay more for something, by forcing them to pay scalpers prices if they want it.
To me, everything is a moral issue, but at the same time, nothing is particularly moral enough for me to really call it a moral issue.
Therefore, I really don't think in terms of morality. I think in terms of optimum function for life.

 

[devilof76]

Yeah, um, you're rationalizing.

Trading does not necessarily mean inequity. It could simply be an even exchange, somewhat like bartering. Yes, profiting from another is inherently unethical, but I am talking about unnecessary profit.

No, profitting from another is how profit happens. If you are opposed to profit, just say so. If you believe growth is immoral, just say so. If you believe that making more out of less is evil, just say so. Barter involves profit, otherwise no one would do it.

Your definition of Live and let live is not ethical. What if someone had all the food and forced people to pay what he wanted or they would starve to death. After all, it wouldn't be live he was coercing people to buy food from him, right?

I think your morality is evil too. We have something in common. Now we're friends.

How did they get all the food? Did they produce it? Then who are those who did not produce it to tell him how much he should charge for it. He should charge nothing because they have no food? Was it their need that grew the food? Did they get hungry and food magically sprouted up? That's what happened, isn't it? He just happened to be standing next to the magic beanstalk when it grew and then like an evil capitalist bastard, he just took it for himself.

No. He would not be coercing them, unless he stole the food from them. Scalpers don't steal statues. They buy them. Are we done now?

You were the one who suggested that the Golden Rule was strictly a middle ages, or dark ages notion. I said that people never followed it, so it isn't like it was ever given a fair chance to promote ethics.

People have been practicing it for years. You simply refuse to accept that what they would have others do unto themselves is give something for nothing.

Of course buyers willing to pay a premium are taking a loss. They are losing more money than they would if they were able to pay the original price. You could say that the original price evaporated when the scalpers bought up the supply, but that would be avoiding admitting the scalpers responsibility for that.

No, they aren't. They are gaining a statue that is worth more to them than the money they trade for it. Otherwise, they would not be giving up the money. The money is worth less to them than the statue. There is no net loss. Only gain.

Yes, Human beings can survive by Jesus moral code, Ie The Sermon On The Mount. It's just that a lot of people are too corrupt or lazy to do it. It would prevent people from getting away with or practicing unethical things, and so bad people or people with bad or unethical intentions would find such a proposition unacceptable, because it would prevent them from being able to being able to prey on others.

You're corrupt, and too lazy to think for yourself. If you weren't then you wouldn't be falling back on the moral ideas of others trying to understand what nature demands of you to live on earth, and you wouldn't be demanding sacrifices of others to satisfy your needs. Your morality is parasitic, and because that is its nature, people have used Christianity to prey on others since the damned religion was invented.

 

[devilof76]

We have been talking about wrong, as in what contradicts or conflicts with the optimum function of the universe. Anything that conflicts with optimum function is wrong, because it falls short of what is absolutely right, or is the ideal.

Do you live your entire life by standards you have not chosen?

Want to be let in on a little secret? The universe will do what it damned well pleases whether you follow it or not. It doesn't give a damn about whether you exist, or not; whether you are moral, or not. It's function is not reliant upon you, and your purpose is not to serve it.

You're free now. You're welcome.

 

[creecher]

Therefore bring down every business for morally denying me of my wealth, because they charge more than what they could, the government for not spending my dollars in the best possible manner. Everyones life could be better.

The optimum function of the universe? Who's to say what that is? The universe functions with much violence, chaos, beauty and order. Everything that has, can, and will happen, happens because the universe is performing it's function, regardless of morals or what we may perceive as optimal function.

 

[devilof76]

Hey! Eyes on your own desk!

 

[Blackthornone]

No, profitting from another is how profit happens. If you are opposed to profit, just say so. If you believe growth is immoral, just say so. If you believe that making more out of less is evil, just say so. Barter involves profit, otherwise no one would do it.



I think your morality is evil too. We have something in common. Now we're friends.

How did they get all the food? Did they produce it? Then who are those who did not produce it to tell him how much he should charge for it. He should charge nothing because they have no food? Was it their need that grew the food? Did they get hungry and food magically sprouted up? That's what happened, isn't it? He just happened to be standing next to the magic beanstalk when it grew and then like an evil capitalist bastard, he just took it for himself.

No. He would not be coercing them, unless he stole the food from them. Scalpers don't steal statues. They buy them. Are we done now?



People have been practicing it for years. You simply refuse to accept that what they would have others do unto themselves is give something for nothing.



No, they aren't. They are gaining a statue that is worth more to them than the money they trade for it. Otherwise, they would not be giving up the money. The money is worth less to them than the statue. There is no net loss. Only gain.



You're corrupt, and too lazy to think for yourself. If you weren't then you wouldn't be falling back on the moral ideas of others trying to understand what nature demands of you to live on earth, and you wouldn't be demanding sacrifices of others to satisfy your needs. Your morality is parasitic, and because that is its nature, people have used Christianity to prey on others since the damned religion was invented.

The food example was a hypothetical situation that proves the point.

"People have been practicing it for years. You simply refuse to accept that what they would have others do unto themselves is give something for nothing."
If they would have others do unto themselves give something for nothing, then they too, must give the other person something for nothing. That is the golden rule. The golden rule is do unto other as you would have others do unto you(and be successful at it) Furthermore, to truly follow the golden rule, you must also put yourself in the other person's situation, and ask how you would like to be treated. For example, someone might say, that person has nice stuff , and I have an horrible stuff, so if I steal his stuff, he can steal mine, and say that was the golden rule. No, it isn't.The golden rule is based upon empathy for others. You would have to put yourself in his position, and ask how you would feel if someone who had ugly stuff stole your nice stuff.

Whenever there is avoidable additional cost that has to be paid, there is loss.

Yes, the Vatican has used Christanity as a tool to oppress people for centuries, but that is the fault of those who pretend to endorse Christianity, and not the fault of Christianity itself. Indeed, the Vatican is corrupt.

 

[Blackthornone]

Therefore bring down every business for morally denying me of my wealth, because they charge more than what they could, the government for not spending my dollars in the best possible manner. Everyones life could be better.

The optimum function of the universe? Who's to say what that is? The universe functions with much violence, chaos, beauty and order. Everything that has, can, and will happen, happens because the universe is performing it's function, regardless of morals or what we may perceive as optimal function.

Well, I am talking about the one unnecessary exploitation of other people that is scalping, right now. Everything else in due time.

 

[creecher]

Hey! Eyes on your own desk!

If I weren't on the other side of the world and wasn't so long winded I woulda beaten ya de76. It's a tie at 9-18, and I came off second best.

 

[Blackthornone]

Do you live your entire life by standards you have not chosen?

Want to be let in on a little secret? The universe will do what it damned well pleases whether you follow it or not. It doesn't give a damn about whether you exist, or not; whether you are moral, or not. It's function is not reliant upon you, and your purpose is not to serve it.

You're free now. You're welcome.

We are all a pert of the universe. It's laws are the foundations for our very lives.

 

[creecher]

Well, I am talking about the one unnecessary exploitation of other people that is scalping, right now. Everything else in due time.

I'm only for what brings down the big boys and their gangs into some form of assemblance, and that's only because I'm a few rungs up the ladder. Leave the individuals alone, they get it from all sides.

 

[creecher]

We are all a pert of the universe. It's laws are the foundations for our very lives.

And thems the laws we all be following. Chaos, beauty, violence and order. It's all encompassing. People take advantage because they're are people to take advantage of. Some willing, some not. It's not necessarily opportunity, or necessary but it is.