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

[devilof76]

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

It didn't prove anything.

Your Golden Rule amounts to asking a person what they want, and giving it. Here's my Golden Rule. I only act freely, and in my own self-interest, and I expect people to treat me that way. That is how I will treat them. No empathy required.

What use is there even in having an ethical concept like that? It legitimizes any morality you insert into it, and as such only serves moralities that are not interested in trade. They want a 'fair price' and believe they are being coerced if the price is not what they dictate a seller should charge for an item the seller--not the dictator--owns.

Your morality is bull____. I'm done.

 

[devilof76]

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

That's true. And your altruism is in direct violation of them.

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.

I actually saw yours coming across the Pacific and copied you before it posted. Ha!

 

[creecher]

I'm gonna just sit here and suffer in my jocks.

 

[devilof76]

At least you're not stuck at work like me.

 

[Blackthornone]

It didn't prove anything.

Your Golden Rule amounts to asking a person what they want, and giving it. Here's my Golden Rule. I only act freely, and in my own self-interest, and I expect people to treat me that way. That is how I will treat them. No empathy required.

What use is there even in having an ethical concept like that? It legitimizes any morality you insert into it, and as such only serves moralities that are not interested in trade. They want a 'fair price' and believe they are being coerced if the price is not what they dictate a seller should charge for an item the seller--not the dictator--owns.

Your morality is bull____. I'm done.

No my golden rule does not amount to asking someone what they want and giving it, in regards to scalping. It means not deliberately buying something for the purpose of selling it at an overly inflated price over the short term when they have no intention of ever keeping it. You act as if the seller merely owns the piece, as if you only want to apply the golden rule after that point. The golden rule here is simply not scalping because you wouldn't want to pay scalper's prices for something you would want all the time.

We are talking about scalping. I am saying that someone should not buy something and then sell it higher than SSC sells it for. SSC sets the price, not the buyer.

 

[Blackthornone]

That's true. And your altruism is in direct violation of them.



I actually saw yours coming across the Pacific and copied you before it posted. Ha!

There is a difference between altruism and justice and fairness. Altruism would be buying a statue and selling it at less than what you paid, while fairness would simply be not to buy something and sell it for MORE.

 

[devilof76]

It would be altruistic to sell something at your alleged fair price if what I wanted was to sell it for more. And I would consider it a gross injustice if I was forced to give it to you for the price you demanded instead of the one I chose.

Your concept of fairness requires sacrifice on the part of your intended victim. That is the core of altruistic moral theory, and as far as I'm concerned, it is patently malevolent.

We are talking about scalping. I am saying that someone should not buy something and then sell it higher than SSC sells it for. SSC sets the price, not the buyer.

SSC sets the price while they own it. Once it has been purchased, they no longer own it; the buyer does. Now that the buyer owns it, they may set the price to whatever they like.

Why do you have a problem with people doing what they will with what they own? Why do you insist on them behaving as though someone who did not buy it has equal dominion over the product as they do? If someone didn't buy it, it's not theirs and they have absolutely no power over the product. None.

Where do you get off advocating such an outrageous offense against people who were operating under the assumption that their lives and property were their own?

 

[Blackthornone]

It would be altruistic to sell something at your alleged fair price if what I wanted was to sell it for more. And I would consider it a gross injustice if I was forced to give it to you for the price you demanded instead of the one I chose.

Your concept of fairness requires sacrifice on the part of your intended victim. That is the core of altruistic moral theory, and as far as I'm concerned, it is patently malevolent.



SSC sets the price while they own it. Once it has been purchased, they no longer own it; the buyer does. Now that the buyer owns it, they may set the price to whatever they like.

Why do you have a problem with people doing what they will with what they own? Why do you insist on them behaving as though someone who did not buy it has equal dominion over the product as they do? If someone didn't buy it, it's not theirs and they have absolutely no power over the product. None.

Where do you get off perpetrating such outrageous offenses against people who were operating under the assumption that their lives and property were their own?

That is sophistry.
You are a sophist.

My concept of fairness does not require any sacrifice. It prevents sacrifice. You are still looking at the ethics of scalping only after a certain point has been reached, and act as if the events that happened before are not considerable. Your point of view is short sighted and begins from an arbitrary point in the course of events. The scalper was totally responsible for buying the item with the intent to resell at an egregious amount of money. That is where the problem is. At the time of sale from SSC. The problem is buying with the intent to scalp. That is what a scalper does. If someone buys for themselves, and then has it in their possession and decides to resell at a higher price, that is different.

 

[devilof76]

There is only one person imposing arbitrary parameters on the situation here, and it's not me.

A scalper is 100% free to buy whatever the hell they like, and sell it for however the hell much they like. Their intentions are not relevant. They have just as much freedom to resell it before as they do after. You have decided that only people who keep what they buy are in the moral right. Why? Because it's 'fair'. Why is it fair? Because that is what you want. And because you want it, you expect everyone else to treat you to your prerogative. You do not recognize the sacrifice of the money they could earn, which is not earned when they can't sell for their choice of price. You flagrantly ignore it because it doesn't fit your idea of how you should be treated.

Well, I have news for you. It is not for you to decide how other people will treat you. Dictating other people's actions is not your prerogative. For you to assert otherwise is arbitrary because there is zero basis for your claim. For you to continue concocting arguments in your favor is...sophistry. Pure rhetoric, and like your precious moral imperative, completely empty.

 

[nash]

get a life loser..

PS: Blackthornone I HAVE 3 WHITE ELEKTRAS suck it!!!!

 

[BadMoon]

I find it more offensive when you try to sell items on the board at lower than retail and get PM's with low ball offers. LOL! Scalp the F away! And this thread is dumb. I guess we all should be able to buy items at cost. The next time you buy an accessory for your cell phone think about how much money you are actually giving said business. When I worked at Best Buy our employee discount was pretty decent. We could buy everything at 5% above actual cost. I bought a $30 cell phone case for like $4.50. LOL! Such is life.

 

[marsattack]

i cant believe you guys have enough words to describe and debate for 8 pages, i read some of it off and on, too complicated and really I need a dictionary to understand what you two are on about....lol
BUT scalpers , yes i know they exist and more than often they are on the ball and faster at clicking BUY than the rest of us.
I should know as I have lost out on some items.

So it brings me to my definition of scalping, if a scalper triples for example the price of something, as said here it is up to the individuals to decide whether to buy.
However the determined cost the scalper has set must be the new price of the item.
If it cannot be bought elsewhere, then that is the price.
If one cannot afford the item it does not mean the item is expensive , it means you cant afford it.
Does this make sense??
Mars

 

[BadMoon]

I can't help but laugh at blackthornone's posts. you must really live in your own fantasy bubble with captain america's jockstrap on your head.

PS: my 3 white elektras said Hi.

What a Utopia it must be. LOL!

 

[Blackthornone]

There is only one person imposing arbitrary parameters on the situation here, and it's not me.

A scalper is 100% free to buy whatever the hell they like, and sell it for however the hell much they like. Their intentions are not relevant. They have just as much freedom to resell it before as they do after. You have decided that only people who keep what they buy are in the moral right. Why? Because it's 'fair'. Why is it fair? Because that is what you want. And because you want it, you expect everyone else to treat you to your prerogative. You do not recognize the sacrifice of the money they could earn, which is not earned when they can't sell for their choice of price. You flagrantly ignore it because it doesn't fit your idea of how you should be treated.

Well, I have news for you. It is not for you to decide how other people will treat you. Dictating other people's actions is not your prerogative. For you to assert otherwise is arbitrary because there is zero basis for your claim. For you to continue concocting arguments in your favor is...sophistry. Pure rhetoric, and like your precious moral imperative, completely empty.

Scalpers are only free by law, but that may change someday. Scalpers need to pay taxes on their profits.
I am saying that there should be ethical parameters enforced, ie laws, determined by logic.
I ignore it because it doesn't fit my perception of how ANYONE should be treated, because I value ethics. Other people don't. Ethics are relative. Mine are higher. Mine are more ethical, because they are more absolute, and thus are truer ethics. Yes, my ethics prevent people from committing less ethical acts, which are practiced for the sake of economic gain, but I think that honor and ethics are more important than money.

 

[Blackthornone]

I find it more offensive when you try to sell items on the board at lower than retail and get PM's with low ball offers. LOL! Scalp the F away! And this thread is dumb. I guess we all should be able to buy items at cost. The next time you buy an accessory for your cell phone think about how much money you are actually giving said business. When I worked at Best Buy our employee discount was pretty decent. We could buy everything at 5% above actual cost. I bought a $30 cell phone case for like $4.50. LOL! Such is life.

I don't use cell phones. They emit microwave radiation that cooks your brain. After 30-40 minutes on a cell phone, your brain temperature increases by two degrees. Two degrees may not seem like much, but that's the result of vibrating the molecules of your brain from the inside out, and is not at all like heat transference, as from fire, or the sun. The damage they cause is cumulative, and they damage DNA,and cause cancer. Microwaves change the cell structure of organic matter. There was a case of a nurse who mistakenly used a microwave oven to heat up blood to the proper temperature for a blood transfusion, and heated the blood to the right temperature, and the person died from the blood transfusion, because the microwaves harmed the blood in a way that conventional heating cannot.

 

[Adoptedscot]

So we've gone from talking about scalpers to the middle ages, the dark ages, jesus christ, insects, the golden rule, Dr. Albert Schweitzer and now blood transfusions that have been microwaved.

 

[BadMoon]

I don't use cell phones. They emit microwave radiation that cooks your brain. After 30-40 minutes on a cell phone, your brain temperature increases by two degrees. Two degrees may not seem like much, but that's the result of vibrating the molecules of your brain from the inside out, and is not at all like heat transference, as from fire, or the sun. The damage they cause is cumulative, and they damage DNA,and cause cancer. Microwaves change the cell structure of organic matter. There was a case of a nurse who mistakenly used a microwave oven to heat up blood to the proper temperature for a blood transfusion, and heated the blood to the right temperature, and the person died from the blood transfusion, because the microwaves harmed the blood in a way that conventional heating cannot.

I think you missed the point Teemu.

 

[Kabukiman]

I've never scalped anything before. After reading this thread, I'm going to give it a shot.

 

[FLOSI]

Now that I've read this I'm going to go take a crap.

 

[Mesa]

I bet Black Thorone voted for Obama.