6 ms·

As a musician, there's something genuinely horrific about the destruction of a musical instrument. Whether it's the fault of PayPal or not, I really hope whoev

• ars 15y ago
  > I really hope whoever has done this gets what they deserve I think they did. They got $2,500. For some reason I believe the buyer and not the seller. I think the seller fraudulently listed the violin as not what it really was, and got called on it. My reasons are: a: The buyer has only a minimal reason to lie (if they didn't like the product and tried to return it but couldn't). b: The seller refused the return, which is unusual for this type of purchase. c: "But my main goal in writing to you is to prevent PayPal from ordering the destruction of violins" - sorry but that type of "moral superiority" is done (in my experience) by people who know they are morally wrong, but are trying to claim the high ground. Obviously I have no actual knowledge here, but that's my sense.
  • nitrogen 15y ago
    c: "But my main goal in writing to you is to prevent PayPal from ordering the destruction of violins" - sorry but that type of "moral superiority" is done (in my experience) by people who know they are morally wrong, but are trying to claim the high ground. I have the same (perhaps irrational) emotional attachment to musical instruments (and rare antique computers, old books, etc.) as the GP. It seems like a "sin" against music and the labor of the instrument's creator to destroy an instrument. I also think it would be wrong to destroy a counterfeit painting, for similar reasons.
  • abecedarius 15y ago
    The seller refused the return? What do you base this on?
  • waqf 15y ago
    I don't think you read the email properly. The seller implies that their preferred outcome was to have the violin returned and, presumably, the price refunded. That dispenses completely with your reasons (a) and (b).
  • Vivtek 15y ago
    According to the article, PayPal didn't give the seller the option to accept a return. So (b) is out, and that undermines the logic of your position in my opinion.
  • cgag 15y ago
    Yeah I agree that's a solid case for destroying an antique instrument and fining someone $2500.
  • incongruity 15y ago
    The buyer need not lie for this to happen – it could be as simple as they were mistaken and genuinely believed that it was fake (assuming it wasn't).
  • Confusion 15y ago
    There's all kinds of reasons someone would want to refuse a violin. Sudden financial hardship. Learning that new violins are actually better than old violins (I'm not arguing that this is true: someone might become convinced of it in a matter of days). A daughter that suddenly doesn't care about violins anymore. This is an incident and there are numerous explanations to believe someone who is anonymously complaining about what happened.
  • stcredzero 15y ago
    "But my main goal in writing to you is to prevent PayPal from ordering the destruction of violins" - sorry but that type of "moral superiority" is done (in my experience) by people who know they are morally wrong, but are trying to claim the high ground. How many instances of "moral superiority" have you witnessed, and how firm is your proof of their "wrongness"? Can you list at least 3? Is there a mechanism preventing people who are genuinely entitled to the moral high ground from taking it, especially if they have been egregiously wronged? Your post doesn't make sense unless this exists.