more bad behavior

[danthedart]

[quote=AN]
Taking millions, well if it’s no illegal, then why are they going to trial about it?

[/quote]

They’re going to court over whether or not its legal for congress to 90% tax the bonuses after the fact. They’re not going to court over taking the bonuses themselves.

[sdrealtor]

I think this issue is being greatly overblown. The vast majority of REO’s go into the hands of a handful of HUGE REO brokers. They typically do not play the games mentioned here as they have far too much to lose. These shenanigans generally go on with the bit players. Really not much to see here….move along…….

[sdrealtor]

I think this issue is being greatly overblown. The vast majority of REO’s go into the hands of a handful of HUGE REO brokers. They typically do not play the games mentioned here as they have far too much to lose. These shenanigans generally go on with the bit players. Really not much to see here….move along…….

[sdrealtor]

I think this issue is being greatly overblown. The vast majority of REO’s go into the hands of a handful of HUGE REO brokers. They typically do not play the games mentioned here as they have far too much to lose. These shenanigans generally go on with the bit players. Really not much to see here….move along…….

[sdrealtor]

I think this issue is being greatly overblown. The vast majority of REO’s go into the hands of a handful of HUGE REO brokers. They typically do not play the games mentioned here as they have far too much to lose. These shenanigans generally go on with the bit players. Really not much to see here….move along…….

[sdrealtor]

I think this issue is being greatly overblown. The vast majority of REO’s go into the hands of a handful of HUGE REO brokers. They typically do not play the games mentioned here as they have far too much to lose. These shenanigans generally go on with the bit players. Really not much to see here….move along…….

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj]
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that I think you would do the deal (despite your stated disapproval of such deals here). Yes, yes, yes… I know you’re saying here that you wouldn’t. (Well, actually, you said “in all likelihood” you wouldn’t do the deal… that’s a nice bit of Clintonian wiggle room you’ve left yourself there. I guess the “in all likelihood” bit leaves the door open for you to do the deal if it’s REALLY good, in which case ethics are a secondary matter.) Yes, perhaps you’re in the 1% of folks who would pass on “ethical” (by your definition) grounds. But, as this is the internet, it’s my prerogative not to believe you. (Words, after all, are plentiful, but only deeds are precious.) And it’s your prerogative not to care whether I believe you. So there you have it.
[/quote]

Okay don’t believe me.. it doesn’t matter. Whether or not I would take the deal has NO bearing on whether or not the deal itself is unethical. That’s the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.

If a chain smoker told you that smoking is bad for your health, could you tell the chain smoker, “You’re wrong. Smoking is not bad for your health because you are a hypocrite.”

We’re talking about whether or not this deal is unethical. We’re not talking about whether or not you or I would do this deal.

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj]
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that I think you would do the deal (despite your stated disapproval of such deals here). Yes, yes, yes… I know you’re saying here that you wouldn’t. (Well, actually, you said “in all likelihood” you wouldn’t do the deal… that’s a nice bit of Clintonian wiggle room you’ve left yourself there. I guess the “in all likelihood” bit leaves the door open for you to do the deal if it’s REALLY good, in which case ethics are a secondary matter.) Yes, perhaps you’re in the 1% of folks who would pass on “ethical” (by your definition) grounds. But, as this is the internet, it’s my prerogative not to believe you. (Words, after all, are plentiful, but only deeds are precious.) And it’s your prerogative not to care whether I believe you. So there you have it.
[/quote]

Okay don’t believe me.. it doesn’t matter. Whether or not I would take the deal has NO bearing on whether or not the deal itself is unethical. That’s the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.

If a chain smoker told you that smoking is bad for your health, could you tell the chain smoker, “You’re wrong. Smoking is not bad for your health because you are a hypocrite.”

We’re talking about whether or not this deal is unethical. We’re not talking about whether or not you or I would do this deal.

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj]
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that I think you would do the deal (despite your stated disapproval of such deals here). Yes, yes, yes… I know you’re saying here that you wouldn’t. (Well, actually, you said “in all likelihood” you wouldn’t do the deal… that’s a nice bit of Clintonian wiggle room you’ve left yourself there. I guess the “in all likelihood” bit leaves the door open for you to do the deal if it’s REALLY good, in which case ethics are a secondary matter.) Yes, perhaps you’re in the 1% of folks who would pass on “ethical” (by your definition) grounds. But, as this is the internet, it’s my prerogative not to believe you. (Words, after all, are plentiful, but only deeds are precious.) And it’s your prerogative not to care whether I believe you. So there you have it.
[/quote]

Okay don’t believe me.. it doesn’t matter. Whether or not I would take the deal has NO bearing on whether or not the deal itself is unethical. That’s the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.

If a chain smoker told you that smoking is bad for your health, could you tell the chain smoker, “You’re wrong. Smoking is not bad for your health because you are a hypocrite.”

We’re talking about whether or not this deal is unethical. We’re not talking about whether or not you or I would do this deal.

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj]
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that I think you would do the deal (despite your stated disapproval of such deals here). Yes, yes, yes… I know you’re saying here that you wouldn’t. (Well, actually, you said “in all likelihood” you wouldn’t do the deal… that’s a nice bit of Clintonian wiggle room you’ve left yourself there. I guess the “in all likelihood” bit leaves the door open for you to do the deal if it’s REALLY good, in which case ethics are a secondary matter.) Yes, perhaps you’re in the 1% of folks who would pass on “ethical” (by your definition) grounds. But, as this is the internet, it’s my prerogative not to believe you. (Words, after all, are plentiful, but only deeds are precious.) And it’s your prerogative not to care whether I believe you. So there you have it.
[/quote]

Okay don’t believe me.. it doesn’t matter. Whether or not I would take the deal has NO bearing on whether or not the deal itself is unethical. That’s the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.

If a chain smoker told you that smoking is bad for your health, could you tell the chain smoker, “You’re wrong. Smoking is not bad for your health because you are a hypocrite.”

We’re talking about whether or not this deal is unethical. We’re not talking about whether or not you or I would do this deal.

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj]
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that I think you would do the deal (despite your stated disapproval of such deals here). Yes, yes, yes… I know you’re saying here that you wouldn’t. (Well, actually, you said “in all likelihood” you wouldn’t do the deal… that’s a nice bit of Clintonian wiggle room you’ve left yourself there. I guess the “in all likelihood” bit leaves the door open for you to do the deal if it’s REALLY good, in which case ethics are a secondary matter.) Yes, perhaps you’re in the 1% of folks who would pass on “ethical” (by your definition) grounds. But, as this is the internet, it’s my prerogative not to believe you. (Words, after all, are plentiful, but only deeds are precious.) And it’s your prerogative not to care whether I believe you. So there you have it.
[/quote]

Okay don’t believe me.. it doesn’t matter. Whether or not I would take the deal has NO bearing on whether or not the deal itself is unethical. That’s the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.

If a chain smoker told you that smoking is bad for your health, could you tell the chain smoker, “You’re wrong. Smoking is not bad for your health because you are a hypocrite.”

We’re talking about whether or not this deal is unethical. We’re not talking about whether or not you or I would do this deal.

[davelj]

[quote=danthedart][quote=davelj]
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that I think you would do the deal (despite your stated disapproval of such deals here). Yes, yes, yes… I know you’re saying here that you wouldn’t. (Well, actually, you said “in all likelihood” you wouldn’t do the deal… that’s a nice bit of Clintonian wiggle room you’ve left yourself there. I guess the “in all likelihood” bit leaves the door open for you to do the deal if it’s REALLY good, in which case ethics are a secondary matter.) Yes, perhaps you’re in the 1% of folks who would pass on “ethical” (by your definition) grounds. But, as this is the internet, it’s my prerogative not to believe you. (Words, after all, are plentiful, but only deeds are precious.) And it’s your prerogative not to care whether I believe you. So there you have it.
[/quote]

Okay don’t believe me.. it doesn’t matter. Whether or not I would take the deal has NO bearing on whether or not the deal itself is unethical. That’s the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.

If a chain smoker told you that smoking is bad for your health, could you tell the chain smoker, “You’re wrong. Smoking is not bad for your health because you are a hypocrite.”

We’re talking about whether or not this deal is unethical. We’re not talking about whether or not you or I would do this deal.

[/quote]

Look, as we’ve already agreed, “ethical” is in the eye of the beholder. YOU said the deal looked unethical to YOU. YOU disapproved of doing the deal on that basis. Therefore, YOU are a hypocrite if you BOTH complain about a deal being unethical (as you’ve done here) and at the same time acknowledge that you’d be willing to do the deal (which, admittedly, you have not). My point was that I don’t believe you. You can’t complain about something being unethical on the one hand, and on the other hand engage in the same behavior without being a hypocrite. It’s that simple.

Now, if you were to say, “I think that behavior is unethical but I would gladly partake because my own ethics are malleable,” well that’s a different story entirely. But that’s not what you’re saying. It’s quite clear that you want to appear high-and-mighty and claim to be the only driver on the high road. And I’m calling BS on your assertion. And thus labeling you a hypocrite.

And you can choose to not care one iota and think of me as an asshole.

[davelj]

[quote=danthedart][quote=davelj]
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that I think you would do the deal (despite your stated disapproval of such deals here). Yes, yes, yes… I know you’re saying here that you wouldn’t. (Well, actually, you said “in all likelihood” you wouldn’t do the deal… that’s a nice bit of Clintonian wiggle room you’ve left yourself there. I guess the “in all likelihood” bit leaves the door open for you to do the deal if it’s REALLY good, in which case ethics are a secondary matter.) Yes, perhaps you’re in the 1% of folks who would pass on “ethical” (by your definition) grounds. But, as this is the internet, it’s my prerogative not to believe you. (Words, after all, are plentiful, but only deeds are precious.) And it’s your prerogative not to care whether I believe you. So there you have it.
[/quote]

Okay don’t believe me.. it doesn’t matter. Whether or not I would take the deal has NO bearing on whether or not the deal itself is unethical. That’s the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.

If a chain smoker told you that smoking is bad for your health, could you tell the chain smoker, “You’re wrong. Smoking is not bad for your health because you are a hypocrite.”

We’re talking about whether or not this deal is unethical. We’re not talking about whether or not you or I would do this deal.

[/quote]

Look, as we’ve already agreed, “ethical” is in the eye of the beholder. YOU said the deal looked unethical to YOU. YOU disapproved of doing the deal on that basis. Therefore, YOU are a hypocrite if you BOTH complain about a deal being unethical (as you’ve done here) and at the same time acknowledge that you’d be willing to do the deal (which, admittedly, you have not). My point was that I don’t believe you. You can’t complain about something being unethical on the one hand, and on the other hand engage in the same behavior without being a hypocrite. It’s that simple.

Now, if you were to say, “I think that behavior is unethical but I would gladly partake because my own ethics are malleable,” well that’s a different story entirely. But that’s not what you’re saying. It’s quite clear that you want to appear high-and-mighty and claim to be the only driver on the high road. And I’m calling BS on your assertion. And thus labeling you a hypocrite.

And you can choose to not care one iota and think of me as an asshole.

[davelj]

[quote=danthedart][quote=davelj]
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that I think you would do the deal (despite your stated disapproval of such deals here). Yes, yes, yes… I know you’re saying here that you wouldn’t. (Well, actually, you said “in all likelihood” you wouldn’t do the deal… that’s a nice bit of Clintonian wiggle room you’ve left yourself there. I guess the “in all likelihood” bit leaves the door open for you to do the deal if it’s REALLY good, in which case ethics are a secondary matter.) Yes, perhaps you’re in the 1% of folks who would pass on “ethical” (by your definition) grounds. But, as this is the internet, it’s my prerogative not to believe you. (Words, after all, are plentiful, but only deeds are precious.) And it’s your prerogative not to care whether I believe you. So there you have it.
[/quote]

Okay don’t believe me.. it doesn’t matter. Whether or not I would take the deal has NO bearing on whether or not the deal itself is unethical. That’s the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.

If a chain smoker told you that smoking is bad for your health, could you tell the chain smoker, “You’re wrong. Smoking is not bad for your health because you are a hypocrite.”

We’re talking about whether or not this deal is unethical. We’re not talking about whether or not you or I would do this deal.

[/quote]

Look, as we’ve already agreed, “ethical” is in the eye of the beholder. YOU said the deal looked unethical to YOU. YOU disapproved of doing the deal on that basis. Therefore, YOU are a hypocrite if you BOTH complain about a deal being unethical (as you’ve done here) and at the same time acknowledge that you’d be willing to do the deal (which, admittedly, you have not). My point was that I don’t believe you. You can’t complain about something being unethical on the one hand, and on the other hand engage in the same behavior without being a hypocrite. It’s that simple.

Now, if you were to say, “I think that behavior is unethical but I would gladly partake because my own ethics are malleable,” well that’s a different story entirely. But that’s not what you’re saying. It’s quite clear that you want to appear high-and-mighty and claim to be the only driver on the high road. And I’m calling BS on your assertion. And thus labeling you a hypocrite.

And you can choose to not care one iota and think of me as an asshole.

[davelj]

[quote=danthedart][quote=davelj]
The hypocrisy lies in the fact that I think you would do the deal (despite your stated disapproval of such deals here). Yes, yes, yes… I know you’re saying here that you wouldn’t. (Well, actually, you said “in all likelihood” you wouldn’t do the deal… that’s a nice bit of Clintonian wiggle room you’ve left yourself there. I guess the “in all likelihood” bit leaves the door open for you to do the deal if it’s REALLY good, in which case ethics are a secondary matter.) Yes, perhaps you’re in the 1% of folks who would pass on “ethical” (by your definition) grounds. But, as this is the internet, it’s my prerogative not to believe you. (Words, after all, are plentiful, but only deeds are precious.) And it’s your prerogative not to care whether I believe you. So there you have it.
[/quote]

Okay don’t believe me.. it doesn’t matter. Whether or not I would take the deal has NO bearing on whether or not the deal itself is unethical. That’s the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.

If a chain smoker told you that smoking is bad for your health, could you tell the chain smoker, “You’re wrong. Smoking is not bad for your health because you are a hypocrite.”

We’re talking about whether or not this deal is unethical. We’re not talking about whether or not you or I would do this deal.

[/quote]

Look, as we’ve already agreed, “ethical” is in the eye of the beholder. YOU said the deal looked unethical to YOU. YOU disapproved of doing the deal on that basis. Therefore, YOU are a hypocrite if you BOTH complain about a deal being unethical (as you’ve done here) and at the same time acknowledge that you’d be willing to do the deal (which, admittedly, you have not). My point was that I don’t believe you. You can’t complain about something being unethical on the one hand, and on the other hand engage in the same behavior without being a hypocrite. It’s that simple.

Now, if you were to say, “I think that behavior is unethical but I would gladly partake because my own ethics are malleable,” well that’s a different story entirely. But that’s not what you’re saying. It’s quite clear that you want to appear high-and-mighty and claim to be the only driver on the high road. And I’m calling BS on your assertion. And thus labeling you a hypocrite.

And you can choose to not care one iota and think of me as an asshole.

[Author]

Posts