[danthedart]

[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.

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj]

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.
[/quote]

Yes we have different ethical standards and ethics is different for each person… but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a discussion about what is ethical or not. It doesn’t mean we can’t debate ethics does it? Isn’t that the point of this conversation?

Somehow you turned it into a “You’re a hypocrite” thing.

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj]

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.
[/quote]

Yes we have different ethical standards and ethics is different for each person… but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a discussion about what is ethical or not. It doesn’t mean we can’t debate ethics does it? Isn’t that the point of this conversation?

Somehow you turned it into a “You’re a hypocrite” thing.

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj]

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.
[/quote]

Yes we have different ethical standards and ethics is different for each person… but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a discussion about what is ethical or not. It doesn’t mean we can’t debate ethics does it? Isn’t that the point of this conversation?

Somehow you turned it into a “You’re a hypocrite” thing.

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj]

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.
[/quote]

Yes we have different ethical standards and ethics is different for each person… but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a discussion about what is ethical or not. It doesn’t mean we can’t debate ethics does it? Isn’t that the point of this conversation?

Somehow you turned it into a “You’re a hypocrite” thing.

[danthedart]

[quote=davelj]

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.
[/quote]

Yes we have different ethical standards and ethics is different for each person… but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a discussion about what is ethical or not. It doesn’t mean we can’t debate ethics does it? Isn’t that the point of this conversation?

Somehow you turned it into a “You’re a hypocrite” thing.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts