Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott
Two problems with that statement: 1) if they want the card, they will rationalize a new definition for "ethical", or rationalize how the seller can't be proven to be unethical; 2) it's much simpler to rationalize a way to get something you want, especially if you have the power to make it happen, then to avoid the thing you want. It's what used to allow me to have a hamburger and beer as my pre-race meal. If I had been a vegetarian on ethical grounds, this example would have covered both of my points.
|
Yesterday you defended an ebay seller who is offering an old mill "brown"card for 2,500$ which many knowledgeable folks here called a black back. It seems to me that that listing is deceptive and unethical or worse. You seemed to have no problem rationalizing that the seller is actually honest and well respected and ethical.
I spent over an hour last night looking at old threads which try to prove out the shill bidding clearly because I tend to rationalize as well: I trust PWCC & Brent and don't believe he would ever ruin his reputation by allowing it to occur with his knowledge. I know cards I consigned were never shilled. And I have trouble seeing all unusual bidding is actually shill bidding. every ebay participant once had 0 feedback or low feedback. PWCC advertises more than most and it's hard to miss when he has 1 card closing every minute all night. I believe that attracts a lot of new ebay bidders. Some of us have strange bidding practices hitting the bid button a lot and looking for the current high bid. Bid retractions are to me inexplicable and clearly another story and not sure why ebay wouldn't suspend someone with more than a couple in a 30 day period.
Obviously shilling is wrong and illegal. I think trying to deceive buyers about a card and overcharging for it is equally wrong. Rationalizing stuff is human and we are all guilty of it as you said