Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 'Agreeing' with one crime doesn't automatically mean you agree with the other. So that's a bit of a moot point anyway. A consistent viewpoint-holder would allow a burglar to steal his/her goods, as that's the effect of assenting to insurance fraud too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC Spyda Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 A consistent viewpoint-holder would allow a burglar to steal his/her goods, as that's the effect of assenting to insurance fraud too. It is if you can only see the world in black and white. Most people can see more than that though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Most insurance companies make a loss as to money earned through premiums against money paid out in claims. They make their money by investing the money, similar to banks. They keep increasing their premiums because they are paying out more, therefore you should report any fraud as it does concern you as it pushes your premiums up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
escobar Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 say u want in on the scam its chritsmas soon. if not see if theres a reward, because the money could come in handy if you have to move to italy and change your name to mario if every1 finds out your a grass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 It is if you can only see the world in black and white. Most people can see more than that though. Yet the law is black and white. It's only the sentencing that is shaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Yet the law is black and white. It's only the sentencing that is shaded. If the law is so ‘black and white’, why do lawyers of plaintiffs and defendants, both believe they stand a good chance of winning a case on behalf of their clients? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 If the law is so ‘black and white’, why do lawyers of plaintiffs and defendants, both believe they stand a good chance of winning a case on behalf of their clients? Because, simply, what each lawyer 'believes' is irrelevant. Each puts-forward one party's case. The Court decides: a. which is proven on the balance of probabilities [civil law]; or b. whether the prosecution's case is proven beyond reasonable doubt [criminal law]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gularscute Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 And perhaps gularscute shares Proudhon's view that 'Property is theft.' Wonder how he/she would argue against a burglar? I wouldn't argue against a burglar, I'd ask them for a receipt for the burglary so that I might have the faintest glimmer of hope of making a claim. Still there'd probably be a clause in the contract written in subatomic print declaring that I was ineligible for a payout because I wasn't burgled on the 32nd of Octember by a centaur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gularscute Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 so according to your book two wrongs make a right Not as a rule. It depends where each wrong is positioned on the continuum between absolute morality and utter corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Not as a rule. It depends where each wrong is positioned on the continuum between absolute morality and utter corruption. All morality is relative, subjective, and malleable. That's why 'morality-only' fails as a value system by which to live.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.