Ebay seller flipping Stepped Blue Titanium Chaparral's that he got for $19 each

[Surfingringo]

I think this thread ran its course a few pages ago. We should probably get back to the werewolf jokes.

[Cliff Stamp]

And yet here you are in a thread which you believe violates forum rules defending the person and his moral authority to take advantage of an innocent person

I never defended the actions of said individual as being morally right.You just assumed since I didn't want to lynch the guy I supported his actions and then you started on the character judgement.

As I noted in the above, my view on a moral action does not in general lead me to condemn others who have a different position for lack of understanding, flaws in character or in fact even compel them to comply with my moral obligation.

Again, what I noted was :

-it wasn't obviously a crime in theft or fraud

-this isn't the place to condemn / insult / degrade people for what you believe is a moral failing on their part

- it really isn't obvious at all that a moral interpretation is correct and that anyone having a different one shows flawed character

... which resides firmly in a culture which doesn't look that kindly on taking advantage of innocent people.

Really, you now feel you are qualified to speak for the entire culture of whatever group is supposed to represent this contracting party? Even if this were the case, that you actually could make such an argument (which it itself a fairly extreme position to take) at best you have a fallacy of populace. This is clearly special pleading because you would not accept that at all if I used it.

How about if I said that the vast majority of people in the US would support restrictions on knife carry/ownership. If this was true would you then support that such laws should be enacted simply because the majority holds that position, or would you argue against it even if it was the majority? If you do the latter you just contradicted your own argument.

[bearfacedkiller]

download (4).jpg (6.84 KiB) Viewed 2728 times

[brian0918]

Found another guy who took advantage of eCop's glitch:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Spyderco-Chapar ... 1554863909" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bodog]

Laws are not the defining code of right and wrong for a culture, they're only an attempt at it. If something is illegal, then it's illegal and that's that regardless of what I think unless I have the discretion to ignore it based on approval by the governing body I work for.

There are two types of laws governed by two different philosophies. Actions which are malum in se and actions which are simply malum prohibitum. Actions which are inherently bad and actions which are simply prohibited because they're against whatever the ruling class decides.

You're trying to mix something that would be malum prohibitum, the knife laws, and something that would be malum in se, essentially legal thieving. Two separate actions governed by two separate legal philosophies.
A better example would be carrying knives vs. narcotics possession. Two products that don't hurt anyone except the person using the product unless the person using the product forces that product onto someone else without their approval, which would turn an action governed under malum prohibitum into something governed by malum in se.

Or you could compare keeping excess change given by a mistaken clerk to stealing from a store that doesn't lock their doors at night. Just because the person controlling the business doesn't take proper measures to protect their revenue stream doesn't mean it's ok to take what they've left unprotected.

[bearfacedkiller]

I think we are wandering "off topic"

[brian0918]

That is really your understanding of Supermarket practice, it is the fault of the suppliers? Have you read any of the legal developments in the UK and other countries where laws had to be put in place to stop unfair trading?

Yes. And they are wrong. Europe is eating itself alive trying to find other people to blame for their own bad decisions.

[Cliff Stamp]

You're trying to mix something ...

No, I never equated the two, I disagreed with your reasoning ad populum. Is your counter to that really that you support ad populaum arguments for morality but not for legal issues? Are you really saying that you would not argue for or oppose a moral position simply because it was majority view regardless of the details of the situation? If it is held by the majority then you just accept it as being morally right? Because that is the argument you attempted to use.

[brian0918]

How about if you run a business and I step in and make demands on you to sell me any goods I want for free. If you refuse then I will buy the bank that holds your mortgage I will then increase your rate to the point you can't pay it and the for close on your store.

There is nothing illegal about what I am doing, I am not doing any physical threat but do you still see your actions as voluntary and my actions as morally ok?

Yes, I do. If you want to go ahead and buy a bank because I won't give you a candy bar for free, go ahead. I'm sure your bank depositors, shareholders, and insurers will not think poorly of your idiotic behavior.

Your scenario is fantastical and unrealistic - which is the the typical last resort for people trying to justify collectivist policies.

[Bodog]

I think we are wandering "off topic"

You don't have to participate or even click on the thread but there's something that keeps bringing you back. If you don't like the thread why not either ignore it or click on the report button if you find it offensive? Just wondering.

Part of the reason people like Spyderco, aside from the great knives obviously, is the fact that Sal really seems to be a moral guy. He tries to infuse moral lessons into a lot of what he says and tries to get people to understand how to be good towards others.

If he doesn't want a discussion of morality then he can close the thread. He's been on his forum several times since the thread opened. I assume he's seen it already.

[Cliff Stamp]

Yes. And they are wrong.

Ok, so you see the Supermarkets leveraging buying power with no restrictions to be perfectly moral. Do you also find the actions I outlined in the water supply scenario in the above to be perfectly moral and in the bank scenario?

[brian0918]

Yes. And they are wrong.

Ok, so you see the Supermarkets leveraging buying power with no restrictions to be perfectly moral.

Correct. There is a difference between economic power and political power. Only one of those comes at the point of a gun.

Do you also find the actions I outlined in the water supply scenario in the above to be perfectly moral and in the bank scenario?

Correct. Your scenario is yet another fantastical, unrealistic, "lifeboat" scenario which is wholly worthless for deriving moral rules, since morality should be based in reality to be useful. In reality you are not faced with lifeboat situations everyday.

[ChrisinHove]

Supermarkets force unfair trading practices because small suppliers can not refuse the contract because there is no alternative, they either sell or the goods go unsold. In perishable markets like food the leverage is extreme.

No alternatives? They grew food without a means by which to profitably sell it? That sounds like a bad decision on their part.

Can they not sell directly to the consumer, or find someone else to buy the food at a discount, in order to recoup some costs? If not, what's stopping them from doing so?

It takes time to replace a large / nationwide supply contract - which you do not have with perishable goods & tight margins: I'm not making this up - this has been a major issue in the UK.

[Cliff Stamp]

Yes, I do.

So your only issue is physical violence, any other means of restricting choices you see as perfectly morally fine?

As an aside, it isn't only Europe that has fair trade laws, the US is full of them and they are more than a century old going back to anti-dumping laws of the early 1900's. In that case large producers who wanted to devalue inport goods would purchase mass quantities, sell them at a loss to devalue them which allowed them to artificially inflate the worth of their own goods for which they could raise prices and maximize profits in the long term at the considerable expense of both the local consumer and of course the importer (and those effected).

I assume you oppose anti-dumping laws and similar fair trade restrictions in the US as well then?

[Bodog]

You're trying to mix something ...

No, I never equated the two, I disagreed with your reasoning ad populum. Is your counter to that really that you support ad populaum arguments for morality but not for legal issues? Are you really saying that you would not argue for or oppose a moral position simply because it was majority view regardless of the details of the situation? If it is held by the majority then you just accept it as being morally right? Because that is the argument you attempted to use.

Just because the Aztecs killed babies doesn't mean it's ok for the Aztecs to have killed babies. As a culture they were wrong. On the same token, the US population has deemed it acceptable to take money from people who work and give it to people who voluntarily don't. As a culture they (we) are wrong. But they say it's illegal to fish without a permit so you can feed your kids. That's also wrong. They'll take money from poor hard working people to give to poor lazy people. On top of that, they'll take from poor small business owners and give that money to wealthy companies when the wealthy business owners chose to direct their company incorrectly and were looking at bankruptcy.

We can get into the legalities and moralities all day long. What society finds acceptable is rarely a reliable compass to find what's right and wrong. At the same time, what one culture may find right or acceptable very well may not be truly morally right. I get what you're saying. I do. The guys moral compass points to a different north pole than mine does and you're saying it's not illegal so who am I to say something. Well, I could be living in the company of pirates, that doesn't mean the presence or absence of laws or presence or absence of morality means that there's actually an absence of what SHOULD be moral or immoral. This guy specifically found himself in the company of pirates with no laws stopping what he's doing and no one to say he's wrong. It doesn't mean he's right and it doesn't mean no one else should stand up to it.

[brian0918]

It takes time to replace a large / nationwide supply contract - which you do not have with perishable goods & tight margins: I'm not making this up - this has been a major issue in the UK.

You act as if they just discovered this fact about perishable goods yesterday. If suppliers have not been able to properly insure against the fact that their goods happen to be perishable, there has to be a reason for it, likely due to overbearing regulation, restrictions against who they can trade with, etc.

This reminds me of economists blaming market fluctuations on the weather, as if people just realized that it snows every winter. No matter how bad the weather gets, the market should be able to prepare for, insofar as it is free to do so. But markets are generally heavily regulated, companies are restricted in the roles they can adopt, the products and services they can sell, etc, so if an unforeseen event occurs, they are less capable of dealing with it.

[Cliff Stamp]

[ What society finds acceptable is rarely a reliable compass to find what's right and wrong.

Well then why bring up some kind of argument that the culture that governs the interaction has some particular view hence that should be utilized for normative judgments.

[bearfacedkiller]

I think we are wandering "off topic"

You don't have to participate or even click on the thread but there's something that keeps bringing you back. If you don't like the thread why not either ignore it or click on the report button if you find it offensive? Just wondering.

Part of the reason people like Spyderco, aside from the great knives obviously, is the fact that Sal really seems to be a moral guy. He tries to infuse moral lessons into a lot of what he says and tries to get people to understand how to be good towards others.

If he doesn't want a discussion of morality then he can close the thread. He's been on his forum several times since the thread opened. I assume he's seen it already.

I keep coming back to this thread because I like this forum and would like to do my part to keep the bickering to a minimum. The tone around here has been less than ideal as of late and I simply would like to be a voice of reason. The very tone you just took with me is an example of this. I feel as though my statement which you quoted was fairly benign. It wasn't directed at you or any specific individual and I even used the word "we".

I understand Sal is a moral guy and I am fully aware of what the company motto is and how the OP's concern is directly related to that motto. I also believe that whatever was to be gained by this thread in regards to the OP's original concern has been gained. What I do not understand is what anybody has to gain by the continuation of this thread now that it has taken a turn in a very different direction.

Grumpy-Cat.jpg (9.86 KiB) Viewed 2696 times

We do not need to debate morality on a knife forum and there are forums specifically for that. Or, if you would like discuss morality with specific members of this forum we have an off topic section. Taking the discussion there would be much appreciated by those of us who come here to discuss Spyderco and their related products or even knives in general.

Maybe we should be discussing the morality of thread derailment and ego battles.

[brian0918]

So your only issue is physical violence, any other means of restricting choices you see as perfectly morally fine?

Physical force, threat of physical force, fraud (breach of contract or falsification), are the only examples which violate the rights of other individuals. All other alleged "means of restricting choice" do not violate rights.

In that case large producers who wanted to devalue inport goods would purchase mass quantities, sell them at a loss to devalue them which allowed them to artificially inflate the worth of their own goods for which they could raise prices and maximize profits in the long term at the considerable expense of both the local consumer and of course the importer (and those effected).

That's not what dumping is. But I also wouldn't have a problem with that practice, and I don't believe it would have the intended long-term benefits that you claim.

[Cliff Stamp]

Physical force, threat of physical force, fraud (breach of contract or falsification), are the only examples which violate the rights of other individuals. All other so-called "means of restricting choice" (freely using your terms) do not violate rights.

What right is being restricted, and why is physical force a restriction and other consequences or threats of consequences not restrictions?