Is it ethical to alter cards and sell them without disclosure?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Actually, I never asked an open ended question nor did I ask whether you or any poster would "do anything unethical". I asked if it is or is not ethical to sell an altered card without disclosure. The other examples were phrased in the same way for precisely this reason.

Read what I wrote. I said yours is MORE LIKE the open ended question, because it's imprecise.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Read what I wrote. I said yours is MORE LIKE the open ended question, because it's imprecise.

They are all the same format. None of them stipulate all, or any, of the sub possibilities that different people consider in the gray edges. They are formatted exactly in this way for precisely this reason.

You all could perfectly answer the formatted question, limited to 100 characters, for another crime, and we would all be aware that if we examined 100 cases we would not agree on all of them, but none of us would pretend that we are not cognizant of the central subject and issue.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

They are all the same format. None of them stipulate all, or any, of the sub possibilities that different people consider in the gray edges. They are formatted exactly in this way for precisely this reason.

You all could perfectly answer the formatted question, limited to 100 characters, for another crime, and we would all be aware that if we examined 100 cases we would not agree on all of them, but none of us would pretend that we are not cognizant of the central subject and issue.

Again, I don't think there is anything close to the consensus here as to what is acceptable and what isn't. You and I might agree on nearly every case, but even going back many years there were disagreements about a lot of things, like erasing pencil for example.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Again, I don't think there is anything close to the consensus here as to what is acceptable and what isn't. You and I might agree on nearly every case, but even going back many years there were disagreements about a lot of things, like erasing pencil for example.

100% the case. And I doubt, that if we sat down for 5 hours and discussed the limits of self-defense, we would have exactly the same boundary. Or for robbery. Or for tax fraud. Or for any other crime under the sun. And yet, we would both be fully able to render an opinion on the subject.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

100% the case. And I doubt, that if we sat down for 5 hours and discussed the limits of self-defense, we would have exactly the same boundary. Or for robbery. Or for tax fraud. Or for any other crime under the sun. And yet, we would both be fully able to render an opinion on the subject.

Right, but in a poll that uses a term we both use differently, our answers would not convey much.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Right, but in a poll that uses a term we both use differently, our answers would not convey much.

Surely as people who possess common sense, we could say we are for or against tax fraud, jaywalking, murder, watch thievery, illicit ticket scalping, or literally any other crime of your choice except this one. We could convey our general framework and values because we speak English and know perfectly well what we are talking about. And then we might dive into some fun 'what if?' scenarios and play with the edges (possible with our fingers or a tortillon or a spoon), but in no other crime of which we were both generally informed would we play dumb and pretend we can't render a judgement.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

jaywalking

Personally, I'm cool with jaywalking.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Surely as people who possess common sense, we could say we are for or against tax fraud, jaywalking, murder, watch thievery, illicit ticket scalping, or literally any other crime of your choice except this one. We could convey our general framework and values because we speak English and know perfectly well what we are talking about. And then we might dive into some fun 'what if?' scenarios and play with the edges (possible with our fingers or a tortillon or a spoon), but in no other crime of which we were both generally informed would we play dumb and pretend we can't render a judgement.

Fair enough, I think this is in a different category though, because to me yes there's a core (trimming, recoloring, adding material) but there are many other things as to which there is no consensus and which to me are more than the examples around the edges in other cases. Thus, when one says murder, it has a relatively common meaning. I don't think that's true, any more anyhow, for alteration. It just means different things to different people. So people could say yes, selling an altered card without disclosure is fraud, but they might think cleaning was fine.