Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth
It's very different for a business that has consignors it will potentially need to reimburse, an ongoing auction with hundreds of bidders, and an insurer (or more than one) it potentially will need to deal with and agree with (or not) on values of stolen cards. It's not at all the same thing as one guy selling one card on the BST. Just because you can construct some overly simplistic analogy does not make the analogy meaningful. Again, who was, or could have been, hurt in this massive outrageous fraud?
|
Note these differences are claims about convenience. We all know that something is not okay just because honesty might be less convenient. That convenience is magnified the more items there are, surely. But you would also surely not accept ethics by convenience for other issues.
We all know they did not have an insurance claim that required hosting a fraudulent auction, as so many people claimed. I am still to this day, after like 1,110 posts and dozens of emails with people over it, still awaiting a single solitary example of any insurance policy from all of human history that requires hosting fake auctions to value items
. We all know perfectly well they could be valued another way.
If you want to have a standard where it is okay to do because the winners did not get their money stolen, frankly, that would be understandable and I would simply disagree. But that was not and is not the line -
because you all know 100% perfectly well why it would be wrong for me to do the exact same thing. If this was your sincere view, you all wouldn't have understood why it would be wrong for me to do it. The thread could have been like 200 posts if you guys had been consistent, instead of insisting on inconsistent standards to justify it only for certain people.