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

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

I don't think there is a single other crime we could do this for that would considered in the same way here.

For example:

If I asked a different board if murder was ethical or unethical, there would be a few jokey troll responses of ethical and everyone else would say unethical. It might spark an interesting debate about where, precisely, the line between murder and self-defense lies, as is often vague still in many jurisdictions and on which reasonable people may disagree. That would not cause a significant number of posters to claim, well golly, they can't answer the question because they aren't sure if case Y that someone might reasonably consider not self-defense really is and should be termed self-defense. Nobody would pretend they don't know what the crime is.

Or let's say it was "is it ethical or unethical to claim false deductions on your taxes to lower your tax bill?". A sizable number of people would honestly answer one way or the other this time, a more split vote but a majority against it. It might spark some interesting side debate on if certain stretches are truly a 'false' deduction or might be seen in another light and what falls within the textual basis, exactly. People would not pretend that they cannot give an opinion because they might disagree on a particular edge case. Nobody would pretend that they cannot understand the issue or the ethic raised.

Of course, it is only within a context where a sizable body has a financial interest in exactly this kind of act, that we pretend it is difficult to understand the subject or render any opinion. You are all experienced card collectors and you know perfectly well what is under discussion. For no other crime discussed in a body that is knowledgeable about the subject pertinent to the crime, would you pretend to be unable to be for or against the concept because X might disagree in Y exact scenario. It is this kind of sophistry that is really the main point - when a side must resort to arguing no conclusion can be made because there is always an endless array of possible scenarios still to go or against disclosing a fact, it is a clue that they are doing something wrong. Is it really so hard to just disclose with honesty? No, it's not hard. It doesn't pay as well, and so some will be commendably honest and admit it and a greater number will wring their hands and pretend they can't figure it out, while a majority don't have a problem stating the obvious.

Hot take: Soaking a card doesn't seem quite as black and white as murder.

You invoked taxes, so let's bore everyone to death by poking at it with my own little taxable tortillon.

As a CPA, I will tell you that there are a lot of shades of gray out there when it comes to deductions. While there are some areas that are clearly black and white, most of the action is in the gray, and discerning the precise shade of gray, and whether it makes sense to go there. You may be shocked to learn that as a tax preparer, my professional standards only require that there must be at least a 40% chance of prevailing in tax court for me to sign a tax return as the preparer.

40%!!!!

I would posit that similar ambiguities abound when it comes to cardboard.

While I'm happy to agree every day of the week and twice on Sunday that trimming is out, I'm not as convinced when it comes wiping off a fingerprint. I've never done it, but it doesn't seem all that terrible to me, and certainly shouldn't be considered as tantamount to murder.

But I guess I'm probably a little too prone to seeing too many shades of gray, and being willing to play in that gray when appropriate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Much of life is a gray area. Even murder to an extent, but I am not going to bring up a very divisive issue.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

Hot take: Soaking a card doesn't seem quite as black and white as murder.

You invoked taxes, so let's bore everyone to death by poking at it with my own little taxable tortillon.

As a CPA, I will tell you that there are a lot of shades of gray out there when it comes to deductions. While there are some areas that are clearly black and white, most of the action is in the gray, and discerning the precise shade of gray, and whether it makes sense to go there. You may be shocked to learn that as a tax preparer, my professional standards only require that there must be at least a 40% chance of prevailing in tax court for me to sign a tax return as the preparer.

40%!!!!

I would posit that similar ambiguities abound when it comes to cardboard.

While I'm happy to agree every day of the week and twice on Sunday that trimming is out, I'm not as convinced when it comes wiping off a fingerprint. I've never done it, but it doesn't seem all that terrible to me, and certainly shouldn't be considered as tantamount to murder.

But I guess I'm probably a little too prone to seeing too many shades of gray, and being willing to play in that gray when appropriate.

You are surely literate enough to realize that the socratic companion was used, not a claim that trimming a card or pressing an edge is tantamount to murder. I am often derisive of the general reading comprehension level, but we are surely not that bad here! Nonetheless, thank you for making my central argument for me. While there are likewise large areas of gray and the edges are fuzzy, you are somehow sill perfectly able to render your opinions about these other subjects.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

You are surely literate enough to realize that the socratic companion was used, not a claim that trimming a card or pressing an edge is tantamount to murder. I am often derisive of the general reading comprehension level, but we are surely not that bad here! Nonetheless, thank you for making my central argument for me. While there are likewise large areas of gray and the edges are fuzzy, you are somehow sill perfectly able to render your opinions about these other subjects.

Cool. I guess we've gotten to the ad hominem attacks part of our program. Or maybe this is the second act, since you've already established that I'm not particularly honest.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by raulus

Cool. I guess we've gotten to the ad hominem attacks part of our program. Or maybe this is the second act, since you've already established that I'm not particularly honest.

I think the first was your criticism that I looked at both sides of the transcript. The second was my reply to that. If I thought there wasn't a record of both things I did, and the two things I did were contradictory and I was unhappy because you saw the two things, would you call me honest? I doubt it.

I would say the third was you falsely trying to pretend I made an argument that in any way whatsoever related altering a card to committing murder.

The fourth was my response implying that you are fully capable of reading and you know that was a blatant mischaracterization.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think the first was your criticism that I looked at both sides of the transcript. The second was my reply to that. If I thought there wasn't a record of both things I did, and the two things I did were contradictory and I was unhappy because you saw the two things, would you call me honest? I doubt it.

I would say the third was you falsely trying to pretend I made an argument that in any way whatsoever related altering a card to committing murder.

The fourth was my response implying that you are fully capable of reading and you know that was a blatant mischaracterization.

Fair enough. You win.

How do I change my vote?