4 ms·

| And since when is working around the | law a crime? Finding a loophole in the law, may make what you did technically legal, but it doesn't make it all of t

by pyre 13y ago

| And since when is working around the | law a crime? Finding a loophole in the law, may make what you did technically legal, but it doesn't make it all of the sudden a 'good' thing. If I found a loophole in the laws that let me defraud you of all your money, while technically staying inside of the law, would I not still be a fraudster/conman, even if I didn't run afowl of any 'fraud' laws?

katbyte 13y ago
I think theres a rather large difference between finding away around the law to defraud/steal from someone and finding a way to send money cheaper/easier then existing methods. Its very much like how urber or air bNb are finding ways around existing constrictive regulations designed to protect existing incumbents. I mean really, what business is it of the governments is it who i send my money to??
- pyre 13y ago
  | I think theres a rather large difference between finding away around the | law to defraud/steal from someone and finding a way to send money | cheaper/easier then existing methods. | I mean really, what business is it of the governments is it who i send my | money to?? My response about fraud was an example to highlight how 'working around the law' doesn't necessarily mean that you are or aren't doing something. You may not be doing it by the legal definition, but you can still be doing it by the 'common' definition. | designed to protect existing incumbents So, you're saying that tenants breaking their lease agreements is a good thing. Because the tenant is 'disrupting' the landlord (the 'incumbent')? If I have a house that I want to rent out, am I an evil person that needs to be put in my place by the tenants that rent it from me? Is there someone wrong with me wanting to vet the people that will be living in said house (especially since damage done to the house can be hard to recover in some municipalities)?
  - katbyte 13y ago
    > So, you're saying that tenants breaking their lease agreements is a good thing That is not what i was referring to, I was talking about the laws the city passes to prevent it and protect hotels.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
Your scenario is assuming the conclusion. Defrauding someone will cause you to be guilty of fraud, because that's what "defraud" means. What you mean to say is that there are some things which are contemptible but still technically legal. But the converse is also true: Some things remain legally prohibited that would otherwise be morally unobjectionable. Legality and morality are independent variables. Whether doing a thing is 'good' or not has nothing to do with whether that thing is legal, "technically legal" or totally illegal. All its legal status tells you is whether you can expect to be convicted of it if accused.
- pyre 13y ago
  | Defrauding someone will cause you to be | guilty of fraud, because that's what | "defraud" means. The legal definition and the 'common' definition of something don't always match up.
flyinRyan 13y ago
You didn't answer his question. He didn't ask if it was morally ok, but when it started being an actual crime.

by pyre 13y ago

katbyte 13y ago

I think theres a rather large difference between finding away around the law to defraud/steal from someone and finding a way to send money cheaper/easier then existing methods. Its very much like how urber or air bNb are finding ways around existing constrictive regulations designed to protect existing incumbents. I mean really, what business is it of the governments is it who i send my money to??

pyre 13y ago
| I think theres a rather large difference between finding away around the | law to defraud/steal from someone and finding a way to send money | cheaper/easier then existing methods. | I mean really, what business is it of the governments is it who i send my | money to?? My response about fraud was an example to highlight how 'working around the law' doesn't necessarily mean that you are or aren't doing something. You may not be doing it by the legal definition, but you can still be doing it by the 'common' definition. | designed to protect existing incumbents So, you're saying that tenants breaking their lease agreements is a good thing. Because the tenant is 'disrupting' the landlord (the 'incumbent')? If I have a house that I want to rent out, am I an evil person that needs to be put in my place by the tenants that rent it from me? Is there someone wrong with me wanting to vet the people that will be living in said house (especially since damage done to the house can be hard to recover in some municipalities)?
- katbyte 13y ago
  > So, you're saying that tenants breaking their lease agreements is a good thing That is not what i was referring to, I was talking about the laws the city passes to prevent it and protect hotels.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago

Your scenario is assuming the conclusion. Defrauding someone will cause you to be guilty of fraud, because that's what "defraud" means. What you mean to say is that there are some things which are contemptible but still technically legal. But the converse is also true: Some things remain legally prohibited that would otherwise be morally unobjectionable. Legality and morality are independent variables. Whether doing a thing is 'good' or not has nothing to do with whether that thing is legal, "technically legal" or totally illegal. All its legal status tells you is whether you can expect to be convicted of it if accused.

pyre 13y ago
| Defrauding someone will cause you to be | guilty of fraud, because that's what | "defraud" means. The legal definition and the 'common' definition of something don't always match up.

flyinRyan 13y ago

You didn't answer his question. He didn't ask if it was morally ok, but when it started being an actual crime.