(08-31-2016, 07:16 PM)Yssen Wrote:(08-31-2016, 07:03 PM)Threed Crowley Wrote:(08-31-2016, 06:41 PM)Yssen Wrote:(08-31-2016, 06:02 PM)Threed Crowley Wrote:(08-31-2016, 11:37 AM)Yssen Wrote: In that it is that one is using the exact same thinking to justify and proceed with the action. One takes advantage of a flawed system to the detriment of others in a community. While knowing (i hope) that what they are doing is wrong, but proceeding anyway because profit. This would be why there was the qualifier of "about the same."
But if you have an argument for how snatching up a house soley for the purpose of exploiting other player's want of housing for a massively inflated profit isn't using the same sort of douchebag logic as the above example, i'm open to hearing your argument. Yar.
That medicine is needed for someone's survival. You're not going to catch an infection and die because you didn't get a plot of land in Final Fantasy. Flipping pretend video game houses is not a matter of life and death. They only make that gil because people are willing to pay it, people who don't necessarily need a house, but want one anyway. The buyers could all band together and say nah, I'm not paying that. People who need their meds or their epipens or whatever else somebody is jacking up the price of these days don't always have that option. It's nowhere even close to "about the same".
I never said it was the same in terms of severity or life and death, I said it was using the same douchebag logic as the prior example. That is how it is "about the same." It is about the same because it is an equally predatory act made without regard for others by exploiting a flawed system. It is about the same because when people buy up the limited housing space with the intent of placing an excessive premium on releasing that space to a player, they are giving them no where else to go for housing other than to pay their fee. It uses the same douchebag tactics, that is how it is "about the same."Â
The scale of the the acts severity is not what I am comparing here, it is the fact that going through with either act is equally ethically and morally bankrupt.
It's not an "equally" predatory act. Buyers can choose not to buy from a house flipper. They can choose to wait for SE to add more plots, or for the relinquish timer to tick down. People who need medicine don't have the choice of not buying or waiting for a patent to expire so they can buy a generic. Equating video game house flippers to a CEO jacking up the price of life saving medicine is a tasteless and unnecessary comparison. Some dude going into Wal-mart and buying up all the new Playstation 5s to resell on e-Bay at a huge price increase? Sure. But there was absolutely no reason to equate something as stupid as house flipping to something that is actually an incredibly evil thing to do.
As I have explained in an earlier post farther up, the devil is in the moral and ethical details. In this, these acts are the same. The scale of severity is the only thing that is different. The tactics are the same, scoop everything up so you can charge what you wish and make an ridiculous profit because you have cornered the market and are allowed to exploit others because of it. Life saving medicine, playstation 5s, pretend-y fun time housing. The severity of impact on the individuals being exploited, and the product that is being snatched up to exploit others does not really factor in. Those factors do not make this sort of action any more or less ethically and morally wrong.
As I explained in the post you replied to, it's tasteless and unnecessary for anything other than shock value to compare a serious matter to pretend-y fun time housing in any way. Even if it were about the moral and ethical details, it's still uncalled for. A house flipper isn't buying up a dozen plots with the knowledge that someone might die because they didn't get a small house in the Mist.
