Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
danthedart
Participant[quote=davelj]
“Absolutely unrelated”? Are you sure? The chain smoker is (obviously) a smoker. Discussion of smoking as unhealthy is (obviously) about smoking. In each case, smoking is present. Is it possible that someone’s chain smoking affects their views on whether or not smoking is healthy? I think it’s reasonably likely. Consequently, a side bar discussion as to whether or not the chain smoker is a hypocrite, within the context of discussing the degree to which smoking may or may not be unhealthy, doesn’t seem too far fetched.[/quote]
From wiki:
Ad hominem tu quoque (lit: “You too!”) refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way.
Examples:
* “You say that stealing is wrong, but you do it as well.”
* “He says we shouldn’t enslave people, yet he himself owns slaves”
————————
But anyway, if you want to argue about how hypocritical I am, what should I do? Present testimony from people who know me and my ethics? Give documented evidence of my past ethical choices? This would basically be a ridiculous discussion.Participant[quote=davelj]
“Absolutely unrelated”? Are you sure? The chain smoker is (obviously) a smoker. Discussion of smoking as unhealthy is (obviously) about smoking. In each case, smoking is present. Is it possible that someone’s chain smoking affects their views on whether or not smoking is healthy? I think it’s reasonably likely. Consequently, a side bar discussion as to whether or not the chain smoker is a hypocrite, within the context of discussing the degree to which smoking may or may not be unhealthy, doesn’t seem too far fetched.[/quote]
From wiki:
Ad hominem tu quoque (lit: “You too!”) refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way.
Examples:
* “You say that stealing is wrong, but you do it as well.”
* “He says we shouldn’t enslave people, yet he himself owns slaves”
————————
But anyway, if you want to argue about how hypocritical I am, what should I do? Present testimony from people who know me and my ethics? Give documented evidence of my past ethical choices? This would basically be a ridiculous discussion.Participant[quote=davelj]
“Absolutely unrelated”? Are you sure? The chain smoker is (obviously) a smoker. Discussion of smoking as unhealthy is (obviously) about smoking. In each case, smoking is present. Is it possible that someone’s chain smoking affects their views on whether or not smoking is healthy? I think it’s reasonably likely. Consequently, a side bar discussion as to whether or not the chain smoker is a hypocrite, within the context of discussing the degree to which smoking may or may not be unhealthy, doesn’t seem too far fetched.[/quote]
From wiki:
Ad hominem tu quoque (lit: “You too!”) refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way.
Examples:
* “You say that stealing is wrong, but you do it as well.”
* “He says we shouldn’t enslave people, yet he himself owns slaves”
————————
But anyway, if you want to argue about how hypocritical I am, what should I do? Present testimony from people who know me and my ethics? Give documented evidence of my past ethical choices? This would basically be a ridiculous discussion.Participant[quote=davelj]
“Absolutely unrelated”? Are you sure? The chain smoker is (obviously) a smoker. Discussion of smoking as unhealthy is (obviously) about smoking. In each case, smoking is present. Is it possible that someone’s chain smoking affects their views on whether or not smoking is healthy? I think it’s reasonably likely. Consequently, a side bar discussion as to whether or not the chain smoker is a hypocrite, within the context of discussing the degree to which smoking may or may not be unhealthy, doesn’t seem too far fetched.[/quote]
From wiki:
Ad hominem tu quoque (lit: “You too!”) refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way.
Examples:
* “You say that stealing is wrong, but you do it as well.”
* “He says we shouldn’t enslave people, yet he himself owns slaves”
————————
But anyway, if you want to argue about how hypocritical I am, what should I do? Present testimony from people who know me and my ethics? Give documented evidence of my past ethical choices? This would basically be a ridiculous discussion.Participant[quote=davelj]
“Absolutely unrelated”? Are you sure? The chain smoker is (obviously) a smoker. Discussion of smoking as unhealthy is (obviously) about smoking. In each case, smoking is present. Is it possible that someone’s chain smoking affects their views on whether or not smoking is healthy? I think it’s reasonably likely. Consequently, a side bar discussion as to whether or not the chain smoker is a hypocrite, within the context of discussing the degree to which smoking may or may not be unhealthy, doesn’t seem too far fetched.[/quote]
From wiki:
Ad hominem tu quoque (lit: “You too!”) refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way.
Examples:
* “You say that stealing is wrong, but you do it as well.”
* “He says we shouldn’t enslave people, yet he himself owns slaves”
————————
But anyway, if you want to argue about how hypocritical I am, what should I do? Present testimony from people who know me and my ethics? Give documented evidence of my past ethical choices? This would basically be a ridiculous discussion.Participant[quote=davelj]
Ethics can absolutely be discussed here. Which is exactly what we’ve been doing. And within the context of discussing ethics I have noted that I think you’re a hypocrite and explained my rationale for such belief quite clearly. I’m hopeful that we possess the mental agility to discuss two related issues at once. Perhaps I’m wrong.
[/quote]We can talk about two issues at once, but like I’ve said before, these two “issues” are absolutely unrelated.
Whether or not a chain smoker is a hypocrite has nothing to do with whether or not smoking is healthy.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Ethics can absolutely be discussed here. Which is exactly what we’ve been doing. And within the context of discussing ethics I have noted that I think you’re a hypocrite and explained my rationale for such belief quite clearly. I’m hopeful that we possess the mental agility to discuss two related issues at once. Perhaps I’m wrong.
[/quote]We can talk about two issues at once, but like I’ve said before, these two “issues” are absolutely unrelated.
Whether or not a chain smoker is a hypocrite has nothing to do with whether or not smoking is healthy.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Ethics can absolutely be discussed here. Which is exactly what we’ve been doing. And within the context of discussing ethics I have noted that I think you’re a hypocrite and explained my rationale for such belief quite clearly. I’m hopeful that we possess the mental agility to discuss two related issues at once. Perhaps I’m wrong.
[/quote]We can talk about two issues at once, but like I’ve said before, these two “issues” are absolutely unrelated.
Whether or not a chain smoker is a hypocrite has nothing to do with whether or not smoking is healthy.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Ethics can absolutely be discussed here. Which is exactly what we’ve been doing. And within the context of discussing ethics I have noted that I think you’re a hypocrite and explained my rationale for such belief quite clearly. I’m hopeful that we possess the mental agility to discuss two related issues at once. Perhaps I’m wrong.
[/quote]We can talk about two issues at once, but like I’ve said before, these two “issues” are absolutely unrelated.
Whether or not a chain smoker is a hypocrite has nothing to do with whether or not smoking is healthy.
Participant[quote=davelj]
Ethics can absolutely be discussed here. Which is exactly what we’ve been doing. And within the context of discussing ethics I have noted that I think you’re a hypocrite and explained my rationale for such belief quite clearly. I’m hopeful that we possess the mental agility to discuss two related issues at once. Perhaps I’m wrong.
[/quote]We can talk about two issues at once, but like I’ve said before, these two “issues” are absolutely unrelated.
Whether or not a chain smoker is a hypocrite has nothing to do with whether or not smoking is healthy.
Participant[quote=AN]
Getting in on a good deal someone is offering you is neither lying or cheating. Offering someone a full price offer is neither lying or cheating. The seller agreed on listing price. That’s the price they’re will to let go of the property for, you come in and offer full price and they accept. How is that unethical? You don’t know the conversation between the seller and the agent. What if they say, bring the first full price offer instead of bring me the highest price offer, regardless how long it takes? I bought my house and it’s a REO. I submitted a full price offer the first day it came on the market. The agent submit that to the bank. But they waited for well over 2 weeks, waiting for more offers to come in. The bank/seller have that prerogative. They don’t have to accept the first offer that get put in front of them.[/quote]Good, we’re not talking about legal vs. illegal anymore.
No I agree that your deal was perfectly ethical. And if that’s what happened in the cases mentioned by the OP, then that’s fine. But 1), that’s highly unlikely, because banks just like in your case, typically wait a little bit before accepting the offer. 2) SDR specifically called the agents and they were evasive. Why would you be evasive on something that is perfectly ethical?
I fully admit I don’t have conclusive proof that what they’re doing is unethical, but it seems very likely.
Participant[quote=AN]
Getting in on a good deal someone is offering you is neither lying or cheating. Offering someone a full price offer is neither lying or cheating. The seller agreed on listing price. That’s the price they’re will to let go of the property for, you come in and offer full price and they accept. How is that unethical? You don’t know the conversation between the seller and the agent. What if they say, bring the first full price offer instead of bring me the highest price offer, regardless how long it takes? I bought my house and it’s a REO. I submitted a full price offer the first day it came on the market. The agent submit that to the bank. But they waited for well over 2 weeks, waiting for more offers to come in. The bank/seller have that prerogative. They don’t have to accept the first offer that get put in front of them.[/quote]Good, we’re not talking about legal vs. illegal anymore.
No I agree that your deal was perfectly ethical. And if that’s what happened in the cases mentioned by the OP, then that’s fine. But 1), that’s highly unlikely, because banks just like in your case, typically wait a little bit before accepting the offer. 2) SDR specifically called the agents and they were evasive. Why would you be evasive on something that is perfectly ethical?
I fully admit I don’t have conclusive proof that what they’re doing is unethical, but it seems very likely.
Participant[quote=AN]
Getting in on a good deal someone is offering you is neither lying or cheating. Offering someone a full price offer is neither lying or cheating. The seller agreed on listing price. That’s the price they’re will to let go of the property for, you come in and offer full price and they accept. How is that unethical? You don’t know the conversation between the seller and the agent. What if they say, bring the first full price offer instead of bring me the highest price offer, regardless how long it takes? I bought my house and it’s a REO. I submitted a full price offer the first day it came on the market. The agent submit that to the bank. But they waited for well over 2 weeks, waiting for more offers to come in. The bank/seller have that prerogative. They don’t have to accept the first offer that get put in front of them.[/quote]Good, we’re not talking about legal vs. illegal anymore.
No I agree that your deal was perfectly ethical. And if that’s what happened in the cases mentioned by the OP, then that’s fine. But 1), that’s highly unlikely, because banks just like in your case, typically wait a little bit before accepting the offer. 2) SDR specifically called the agents and they were evasive. Why would you be evasive on something that is perfectly ethical?
I fully admit I don’t have conclusive proof that what they’re doing is unethical, but it seems very likely.
Participant[quote=AN]
Getting in on a good deal someone is offering you is neither lying or cheating. Offering someone a full price offer is neither lying or cheating. The seller agreed on listing price. That’s the price they’re will to let go of the property for, you come in and offer full price and they accept. How is that unethical? You don’t know the conversation between the seller and the agent. What if they say, bring the first full price offer instead of bring me the highest price offer, regardless how long it takes? I bought my house and it’s a REO. I submitted a full price offer the first day it came on the market. The agent submit that to the bank. But they waited for well over 2 weeks, waiting for more offers to come in. The bank/seller have that prerogative. They don’t have to accept the first offer that get put in front of them.[/quote]Good, we’re not talking about legal vs. illegal anymore.
No I agree that your deal was perfectly ethical. And if that’s what happened in the cases mentioned by the OP, then that’s fine. But 1), that’s highly unlikely, because banks just like in your case, typically wait a little bit before accepting the offer. 2) SDR specifically called the agents and they were evasive. Why would you be evasive on something that is perfectly ethical?
I fully admit I don’t have conclusive proof that what they’re doing is unethical, but it seems very likely.
-
AuthorPosts