Reselling concert tickets for profit: is it immoral?

  • 75 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Neither of those have anything to do with my point.

N30F3N1X

Of course they do. You're saying how bad authoritarianism is and why you'd like to get rid of it, and I'm saying why it is here.

You sound like you really don't have the slightest f*cking idea what you're talking about.

#52 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
[...] wouldn't living by your own code be another form of morality?supa_badman
Semantics.
#53 Posted by N30F3N1X (8021 posts) -

You are so ignorant of his point it isn't even funny. But I will laugh for you benefit. :lol:Zeviander

Nope, as somebody with more linguistic dexterity than me said, I'm a moral relativist. As such, I do understand that while opinions on the matter of morality may diverge, there are principles embedded in our psychology that simply cannot be forsaken. In fact I think the whole idea behind morality is based on these things. If you have any other insightful as a wall of fog remark to make, feel free to.

#54 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]You're a nihilist, but you believe there are ways people "ought" to act? I never made any claim about people's minds, so that's a non-sequitor. What we understand as "morality" may be inherent to some degree, but that doesn't mean those ideas should control our actions on an individual level.N30F3N1X

I said I believe in existential nihilism. Life itself means nothing to me.

What do you mean you never made any claim about people's minds?

"Immorality" is an authoritarian conceptYou

Herp derp?

Then try to live a day using lack of integrity, dishonesty and unfairness as your principles. Tell me how well that works out for you.

I never said people ought to act without integrity, or that they ought to be dishonest, you babbling plebe. I said people should live without limits, which is another way of saying I reject "ought" claims as not truth-apt. That's what moral nihilism is. Like I said, you need to do some reading about the philosophy, because you don't know sh*t about it. I don't care what you describe yourself as, ignorance is ignorance, and yours is obvious. I made a claim about the philosophical concept of morality, not how the mind works. How you confuse these things is baffling, but unsurprising from what I've seen of you.
#55 Posted by supa_badman (16636 posts) -

[QUOTE="supa_badman"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

What?

worlock77

I just feel like your answer is a sh!tty answer, I want you to expand. What would be better?

You'll have to explain how it's a sh*tty answer first.

It's a truism, and you didn't expand and offer a better use of morality That and the comment you initially responded to didn't really warrant that. Felt like a strawman to me.
#56 Posted by N30F3N1X (8021 posts) -

You sound like you really don't have the slightest f*cking idea what you're talking about.

worlock77

Oh dear. Please elaborate.

#57 Posted by supa_badman (16636 posts) -
[QUOTE="supa_badman"] [...] wouldn't living by your own code be another form of morality?Zeviander
Semantics.

Isn't that important to morality in general? Morality in itself is semantics isn't it?
#58 Posted by N30F3N1X (8021 posts) -

I never said people ought to act without integrity, or that they ought to be dishonest, you babbling plebe. I said people should live without limits, which is another way of saying I reject "ought" claims as not truth-apt. That's what moral nihilism is. Like I said, you need to do some reading about the philosophy, because you don't know sh*t about it. I don't care what you describe yourself as, ignorance is ignorance, and yours is obvious. I made a claim about the philosophical concept of morality, not how the mind works. How you confuse these things is baffling, but unsurprising from what I've seen of you.Rhazakna

Have you actually ever read anything about philosophy *at all*? I mean real philosophy, like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Kant, or the likes? Because if you don't understand the link between the mind and anything that has to do with philosophy you really have no basis to say anything regarding it :lol:

#59 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="supa_badman"] I just feel like your answer is a sh!tty answer, I want you to expand. What would be better?supa_badman

You'll have to explain how it's a sh*tty answer first.

It's a truism, and you didn't expand and offer a better use of morality That and the comment you initially responded to didn't really warrant that. Felt like a strawman to me.

His point seemed to be that without morality people will steal and murder at will. My point was that people do such things in spite of morality, and indeed often use their professed morals to justify such actions.

#60 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Nope, as somebody with more linguistic dexterity than me said, I'm a moral relativist. As such, I do understand that while opinions on the matter of morality may diverge, there are principles embedded in our psychology that simply cannot be forsaken. In fact I think the whole idea behind morality is based on these things. If you have any other insightful as a wall of fog remark to make, feel free toN30F3N1X
Enter mental illness and the delusion that eating a person's heart is "good", while leaving it in their chest is "evil". Morality is nothing but a concept cooked up by the human mind to justify one's actions. There is no "embedded" things in our psychology or biology. They are merely there because people keep repeating them to one another for generation after generation. It does not "exist" as anything more than a figment of our imaginations. Our nature is self-preservation, and we *will* act on it when our mental faculties can no longer aid our survival.
#61 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

You sound like you really don't have the slightest f*cking idea what you're talking about.

N30F3N1X

Oh dear. Please elaborate.

If you think authoritarianism is simply protecting individual rights then there's no point.

#62 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]I never said people ought to act without integrity, or that they ought to be dishonest, you babbling plebe. I said people should live without limits, which is another way of saying I reject "ought" claims as not truth-apt. That's what moral nihilism is. Like I said, you need to do some reading about the philosophy, because you don't know sh*t about it. I don't care what you describe yourself as, ignorance is ignorance, and yours is obvious. I made a claim about the philosophical concept of morality, not how the mind works. How you confuse these things is baffling, but unsurprising from what I've seen of you.N30F3N1X

Have you actually ever read anything about philosophy *at all*? I mean real philosophy, like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, Kant, or the likes? Because if you don't understand the link between the mind and anything that has to do with philosophy you really have no basis to say anything regarding it :lol:

I never said that either. You really are f*cking horrible at grasping what people are telling you. You have not once in this thread understood a thing I've said. Your arrogance and dismissive attitude is just sad, considering your inept thinking skills. I'm wondering if you're stupid or just lack reading comprehension. Probably the former. Of course philosophy has to do with the mind, I never once denied this you idiot. I said that making a comment about a philosophical concept is not necessarily making a comment about how the mind works. Philosophy of mind is a massive topic, and what I said had nothing to do with it. Are you actually claiming that every statement about philosophy is also an implicit statement about how the minds operates? If so you're even dumber than I thought.
#63 Posted by N30F3N1X (8021 posts) -

Enter mental illness and the delusion that eating a person's heart is "good", while leaving it in their chest is "evil". Morality is nothing but a concept cooked up by the human mind to justify one's actions. There is no "embedded" things in our psychology or biology. They are merely there because people keep repeating them to one another for generation after generation. It does not "exist" as anything more than a figment of our imaginations. Our nature is self-preservation, and we *will* act on it when our mental faculties can no longer aid our survival.Zeviander

Not sure what you're referring to with the heart thing. And how are you judging that it's "mental illness and delusion" if you have no base to define good and evil with?

Not sure what you're saying with that either. Picture a world where we start at prehistory and press fast forward. Where would we be today?

#64 Posted by N30F3N1X (8021 posts) -

If you think authoritarianism is simply protecting individual rights then there's no point.

worlock77

So you're deciding that based on your own assumptions?

#65 Posted by supa_badman (16636 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="supa_badman"] I just feel like your answer is a sh!tty answer, I want you to expand. What would be better?supa_badman

You'll have to explain how it's a sh*tty answer first.

It's a truism, and you didn't expand and offer a better use of morality That and the comment you initially responded to didn't really warrant that. Felt like a strawman to me.

Cool. Now what do you suggest?

EDIT: Sorry Worlock, that quote was supposed to be quoting yours, but you'd understand

#66 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (28438 posts) -

I see no problem you bought the ticket its your property I say sell it, heck half the time I see people actuall selling tickets is when they cannot go to the show yet dont want to waste that money.

#67 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

If you think authoritarianism is simply protecting individual rights then there's no point.

N30F3N1X

So you're deciding that based on your own assumptions?

You seem to have absolutely no idea what authoritarianism is. Until you learn this is an utterly fruitless conversation.

#68 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
Not sure what you're referring to with the heart thing. And how are you judging that it's "mental illness and delusion" if you have no base to define good and evil with? Not sure what you're saying with that either. Picture a world where we start at prehistory and press fast forward. Where would we be today?N30F3N1X
:| I don't even think this is worth the time or the energy to respond to. You cannot even understand the most basic part of what I said and just ignored everything past that. What philosophy have you read by the way? And don't just quote people, list the works you have completed and understood (by explaining them in a way that would be able to teach another person who does not understand). To me, your entire position since entering this thread and responding to Rhazakna has been from a "if I say some things that sound right, often enough, maybe they'll take me seriously" perspective. You really haven't argued against a single point you have been presented with, and just constantly made an irrelevant tangent into your strongest point (which is inherently weak at best).
#69 Posted by thegerg (15655 posts) -
It depends. Sometimes yes, other times no.
#70 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -
Hey N3ON, I want an answer to my question; do you think that making any philosophical statement is implicitly making a statement about how minds operate? I want to know, it's fun to watch you humiliate yourself in front of people who actually know what they're talking about.
#71 Posted by ghoklebutter (19327 posts) -
This is such a weird thread.
#72 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -

In my opinion yes but extremely beneficial to both parties: One person makes a profit and the other person doesn't have to wait in line.

The whole thing has been done before not just with tickets but also phones and gaming systems so I don't see the big deal in all of it.

leviathan91

I disagree with that.

Tickets for pretty much any major event are sold online, so there's no more lines to stand in before the box office opens.

#73 Posted by JohnF111 (14099 posts) -
It's no more immoral than Apple hiring slaves to sell highly overpriced gadgets to people. They don't HAVE to do it but they can. Same applies here, if the idiots will pay then let them.
#74 Posted by edgewalker16 (2279 posts) -

Of course not. It's capitalism.

#75 Posted by Shmiity (5175 posts) -

It's actually illegal to buy a "second-hand" ticket in massachusetts. But nobody enforces it. Example, people who just re-sell their tickets on stubhub ect.