Brother 1602 Knife Review

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kinda painted yourself into a corner there, didn't ya?

If those are your ethics, you have absolutely no ground to stand on next time someone wrongs you. Including Marcinec calling you out for supporting thieves.

It's his definition of ethics.
 
Rupestris said:
Kinda painted yourself into a corner there, didn't ya?

If those are your ethics, you have absolutely no ground to stand on next time someone wrongs you. Including Marcinec calling you out for supporting thieves.

It's his definition of ethics.
Click to expand...

Yes. People are allowed their opinions,, no? It seems some can't understand everyone doesn't share theirs.
 
BenchCo Spydermade said:
Your definition of ethics as an agreed upon set of rules, or whatever it said...That's the issue, there is no agreed upon set of rules here. China has theirs, USA has theirs. You have yours, I have mine.
Click to expand...

Implying that ethics are relative does not make your own set immune to criticism. The problem with that logic is that it asserts that all varying viewpoints are equally valid - which they can be demonstrated not to be so. In this specific example, a company that makes money by directly copying the works of a different company without consent and undercutting the company that legally owns the intellectual property has, in the vast majority of countries, committed a crime. The inability of a company to fruitfully pursue legal challenges does not change the fact that one party has violated the intellectual property of another and likely caused some sort of financial harm by taking a portion of the market.

Ethics that are essentially entirely agreed upon:
- Theft is not okay.
- Causing undue (in this case, financial) harm to another individual is not okay.

If someone stole your identity and started using your information to write a bunch of bad checks, you would probably consider that unethical. Now, imagine someone has hijacked your brand's distinctive style and is making a bunch of lower-quality replicas of your product. Not only is someone making a profit off of your own work, but they are also likely taking consumers away from you -and- dragging down the perception of the product.

China doesn't have their own set of ethics - there are just some people in that country that use their de facto legal immunity to copyright laws to their advantage in a method that is clearly ethically unsound. This is a simple case of people taking advantage of a specific circumstance of international legal difficulty for their own financial gain. This is NOT moral relativism.
 
Comeuppance said:
Implying that ethics are relative does not make your own set immune to criticism. The problem with that logic is that it asserts that all varying viewpoints are equally valid - which they can be demonstrated not to be so. In this specific example, a company that makes money by directly copying the works of a different company without consent and undercutting the company that legally owns the intellectual property has, in the vast majority of countries, committed a crime. The inability of a company to fruitfully pursue legal challenges does not change the fact that one party has violated the intellectual property of another and likely caused some sort of financial harm by taking a portion of the market.

Ethics that are essentially entirely agreed upon:
- Theft is not okay.
- Causing undue (in this case, financial) harm to another individual is not okay.

If someone stole your identity and started using your information to write a bunch of bad checks, you would probably consider that unethical. Now, imagine someone has hijacked your brand's distinctive style and is making a bunch of lower-quality replicas of your product. Not only is someone making a profit off of your own work, but they are also likely taking consumers away from you -and- dragging down the perception of the product.

China doesn't have their own set of ethics - there are just some people in that country that use their de facto legal immunity to copyright laws to their advantage in a method that is clearly ethically unsound. This is a simple case of people taking advantage of a specific circumstance of international legal difficulty for their own financial gain. This is NOT moral relativism.
Click to expand...
Don't confuse law and ethics.
 
BenchCo Spydermade said:
Don't confuse law and ethics.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. China doesn't have their own set of ethics - they have their own set of laws.

Also, realistically, laws are fundamentally related to ethics and have a similar function in society. They are parameters in which people act within for the sake of the smooth functioning of their particular group. Laws also often involve ethical consideration - there and countless lawsuits and criminal cases that have gone through successfully because of ethics issues within or between companies. Insider trading is an ethical issue that can land you in jail, for example.
 
Look, if spyderco made this knife, I'd have bought it from them. If Emerson would've made it, I'd a bought it from them. They didn't. Y'all wanna crucify me, whatever.
 
BenchCo Spydermade said:
Look, if spyderco made this knife, I'd have bought it from them. If Emerson would've made it, I'd a bought it from them. They didn't. Y'all wanna crucify me, whatever.
Click to expand...

My whole diatribe wasn't about that specific knife, but moreso about the argument that you used to defend it.

I have no stake in this argument. I'm just a pedant who likes to type.
 
BenchCo Spydermade said:
Look, if spyderco made this knife, I'd have bought it from them. If Emerson would've made it, I'd a bought it from them. They didn't. Y'all wanna crucify me, whatever.
Click to expand...

We don't care where your ethical stance is at. The fact that you try to justify your actions as something that everyone should agree with is laughable.

BenchCo Spydermade said:
If the rich guys can do it, why can't I as an individual?
Click to expand...

I once saw a police officer blow a red light, but when I blew a red light I got a ticket. The entire justice system is wrong because they won't powder my ass and wipe up my own mess.

Quit playing the victim:rolleyes:
 
Well, you've both claimed that you didn't know the company made Spyderco clones, which I believe, but the tried a post facto justification of the purchase, which has a rather particular odor to it. In said justification you've relied on moral relativism and tu quoque fallacies.

You bought a knife made by known thieves with at least one feature that, frankly, you had to recognize as a blatant ripoff of the Emerson Wave. I suggest you keep it 100 and own that decision rather than your unseemly scramble to explain why it's not that bad.
 
Insipid Moniker said:
Well, you've both claimed that you didn't know the company made Spyderco clones, which I believe, but the tried a post facto justification of the purchase, which has a rather particular odor to it. In said justification you've relied on moral relativism and tu quoque fallacies.

You bought a knife made by known thieves with at least one feature that, frankly, you had to recognize as a blatant ripoff of the Emerson Wave. I suggest you keep it 100 and own that decision rather than your unseemly scramble to explain why it's not that bad.
Click to expand...
This is another case of the slipperiest slope requiring the swiftest footwork...

It happens all the time when a "moral" argument is used to defend immoral actions. It's like watching a drunk try to balance on a beam.

Oh well, love your Brother and enjoy the knife but don't try to paint this knife as something it isn't.
 
Whenever these threads pop up, which is way to often, I look forward to the justifications.
We have had some very creative ones........never heard that particular 'rich guy' version.
Gets some creative points for that beauty.
:thumbsdown:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top