Cold Steel Recon Tanto

Status
Not open for further replies.
tomcrx said:
Where are the facts? You are stating an allegory and hyperbole then claiming at the end it is fact.
Click to expand...


Ethics isn't something you can quantify with numbers or precise legal definitions.

Ethics in this particular example is about doing what is right even if it's not profitable or easy.

I see no way to discuss it without a little allegory and/or hyperbole.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the Cold Steel way of doing business.

Time for a beer :)
 
chuckschilling said:
Because folks like you cannot raise rational, intelligent arguments supported by anything other than emotional, your arguments always seem to devolve into insults.

Sadly lacking in character? No, sir, it is YOU who is lacking - in judgment, discernment, and intelligence. Hopefully you will not procreate and perpetuate your illogic upon further generations.

It seems to have eluded you, however.
Click to expand...

Considering that you lack the ability to even discern right from wrong, arrogance is the stinky cologne I expected you to be wearing. You do not disappoint.

Yet another non sequitur from the king of non sequiturs.
Click to expand...
Your failure to comprehend something doesn't make it a Non sequitur.

Tblock1 said:
Deal in facts, not statements of emotion like calling LT a cutthroat.
Click to expand...

The only emotionality I see is pouring from your keyboards. I don't expect your kind to "get it" But most people reading this thread probably do.
 
Ethics isn't something you can quantify with numbers or precise legal definitions.
Click to expand...

They can be in context. In this argument it seems the crux of the issue is "copying another's design and selling it" The inference is CS is doing this and therefore they are unethical according to your moral principle.

When examples of other companies or makers doing the same...

Fallkniven's A1 as a copy of the SRK.
Scharde's Golden Bear as a copy of the Buck 110.
Blackjack's 1-7 copy of the Randall.
Almost every manufacturer's copy of the Loveless drop point, etc

Your moral principle says they are ethical.

This is a contradiction.

When making a case for your "ethic" for others to adopt it must be consistent and apply to all situations in which that conduct occurs. If not, then you are simply making a judgment based on your like or dislike of an individual and then framing an "ethic" to encompass your reason for that judgment. For some this behavior may be considered unethical.
 
Last edited:
Rat Finkenstein said:
Considering that you lack the ability to even discern right from wrong, arrogance is the stinky cologne I expected you to be wearing. You do not disappoint.
Click to expand...
Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so. You claim I don't know right from wrong, yet you cannot even specify what right and wrong happen to be, other than Cold Steel = wrong. What a childish, churlish fool you are.

Your failure to comprehend something doesn't make it a Non sequitur.
Click to expand...
I failed to comprehend nothing. You may think your arguments have some sort of meaning; those of us with even a glimmer of intelligence can see all too clearly that they are of no meaning and significance whatsoever.

The only emotionality I see is pouring from your keyboards. I don't expect your kind to "get it" But most people reading this thread probably do.
Click to expand...
My kind? Exactly what are you referring to, sir? To people with the analytical skills and judgement required to sift through your posts and see them for the nonsensical claptrap they really are? Guilty.

What's really amusing is how utterly clueless you are about how business is conducted in the real (ie, not imaginary, inside your head) world.
 
tomcrx said:
They can be in context. In this argument it seems the crux of the issue is "copying another's design and selling it" The inference is CS is doing this and therefore they are unethical according to your moral principle.

When examples of other companies or makers doing the same...

Fallkniven's A1 as a copy of the SRK.
Scharde's Golden Bear as a copy of the Buck 110.
Blackjack's 1-7 copy of the Randall.
Almost every manufacturer's copy of the Loveless drop point, etc

Your moral principle says they are ethical.

This is a contradiction.

When making a case for your "ethic" for others to adapt it must be consistent and apply to all situations in which that conduct occurs. If not, then you are simply making a judgment based on your like or dislike of an individual and then framing an "ethic" to encompass your reason for that judgment. For some this behavior may be considered unethical.
Click to expand...

The crux of MY issue is :

"copying another's design and selling it" --while claiming to have invented it!.

If any of the examples/companies you mentioned are also doing this, then I'd say they are doing something unethical as well.

(IMO Cold Steel is certainly not the only questionable company/maker in the knife business.)

Edited for clarity (I hope :) )
 
chuck's shilling said:
Just because you say it's so, doesn't make it so. You claim I don't know right from wrong, yet you cannot even specify what right and wrong happen to be, other than Cold Steel = wrong. What a childish, churlish fool you are.

I failed to comprehend nothing. You may think your arguments have some sort of meaning; those of us with even a glimmer of intelligence can see all too clearly that they are of no meaning and significance whatsoever.

My kind? Exactly what are you referring to, sir? To people with the analytical skills and judgement required to sift through your posts and see them for the nonsensical claptrap they really are? Guilty.

What's really amusing is how utterly clueless you are about how business is conducted in the real (ie, not imaginary, as in inside your head) world.
Click to expand...

I am well aware of Business, and how it is conducted. I try to avoid giving my money to greed-driven sociopaths with a retarded sense of right and wrong.

Your lack of integrity presents a conundrum of sorts. Because as I said earlier, those ignorant of the fact a product is a knockoff have an excuse. . . But what about those ignorant of right and wrong? They know it is a rip off, but due to their twisted value system, simply don't care. . . should they get a pass or simply be dismissed as the scumbags they choose to be?
 
"copying another's design and selling it" --while claiming to have invented it!.
Click to expand...

This "is" the point of contention. While many knifemakers and knife fans credit Bob Lum. In general the buying public credits Cold Steel. I also think LT believes he truly did invent the "american tanto" because his design is more of a shortened katana with a traditional tsuba guard, much less sweep and the addition of a skull-crusher pommel. They are quite different in hand. If you look at the current tanto-like blades they do resemble the CS version more so then the Lum version. I also believe without all of LT's outrageous, schmaltzy "proof" and car-door videos that the "tanto" would not have swept through the martial arts and tactical crowd like it did and become as popular as it has.
 
tomcrx said:
This "is" the point of contention. While many knifemakers and knife fans credit Bob Lum. In general the buying public credits Cold Steel. I also think LT believes he truly did invent the "american tanto" because his design is more of a shortened katana with a traditional tsuba guard, much less sweep and the addition of a skull-crusher pommel. They are quite different in hand. If you look at the current tanto-like blades they do resemble the CS version more so then the Lum version. I also believe without all of LT's outrageous, schmaltzy "proof" and car-door videos that the "tanto" would not have swept through the martial arts and tactical crowd like it did and become as popular as it has.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say in this post.

I still think that what Cold Steel did/does is unethical.

("copying another's design and selling it" --while claiming to have invented it!.)

I need another drink.
 
Just another example. "Puukko", a Finnish knife by Tapio Wirkkala, a post-war Finnish designer.
200px-Pukko.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapio_Wirkkala

Cold Steel sisu:
Cold-Steel-60SS-rw-7658-20145.jpg


At least Lynn Thompson mentions the origins of this knife. Still as a Finn i don't like that he copies this design.
 
Rat Finkenstein said:
I am well aware of Business, and how it is conducted. I try to avoid giving my money to greed-driven sociopaths with a retarded sense of right and wrong.
Click to expand...
"Greed-driven sociopaths", eh? So now you're a psychiatrist?

Your lack of integrity
Click to expand...
Your unfounded personal assaults can only be conducted behind the presumed anonymity of the internet. One can only speculate at the source of your hostility toward others who do not share your viewpoint - in any event, the obvious basis of these attacks is your realization of your own failures and inadequacies. If you were not so pathetic, I might take some umbrage at all of this; but considering the source I am merely amused.

presents a conundrum of sorts. Because as I said earlier, those ignorant of the fact a product is a knockoff have an excuse. . . But what about those ignorant of right and wrong? They know it is a rip off, but due to their twisted value system, simply don't care. . . should they get a pass or simply be dismissed as the scumbags they choose to be?
Click to expand...
You keep repeating this mantra, probably because your limited intelligence precludes you from remembering much more, however repetition of an assertion does not make that assertion more accurate, nor does it make the utterer more believable. You, sir, are simply an unthinking, well-conditioned beast that unthinkingly repeats a behavior simply because you are too limited in intelligence to do anything else.
 
chuckschilling said:
Your unfounded personal assaults can only be conducted behind the presumed anonymity of the internet. One can only speculate at the source of your hostility toward others who do not share your viewpoint - in any event, the obvious basis of these attacks is your realization of your own failures and inadequacies. If you were not so pathetic, I might take some umbrage at all of this; but considering the source I am merely amused.
Click to expand...

But he's the psychiatrist.
 
Children

If this subject can not be discussed with civility, I am going to start issuing infractions.

I suggest you discuss the subject with civility. especially you chuckschilling.
 
Last edited:
Bastid said:
Children

If this subject can not be discussed with civility, I am going to start issuing infractions.

I suggest you discuss the subject with civility. especially you chuckschilling.
Click to expand...
EXCUSE ME? The other poster impugns MY character, impugns MY integrity, and you have the gall to scold me specifically and no one else? Now that is the very epitome of hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Ethics are something beyond the purview of Law. I wouldn't want the government attempting to legislate morality, But not being able to tell the difference between right and wrong is a serious mental flaw.
 
chuckschilling said:
EXCUSE ME? The other poster impugns MY character, impugns MY integrity, and you have the gall to scold me specifically and no one else? Now that is the very epitome of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...



Technically, you impugned your own character and integrity by standing up for Cold Steel's unethical behavior. Then when you got mad, you resorted to churlish insults.

As for me, I have pretty much just repeated what most of the reasonable folks here have said, albeit more pointedly. . .

and those that don't get it probably never will. . . Unless they design something and have it ripped off. Maybe they will toast to the success of the thief? Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do, since it was not prohibited by law?
 
chuckschilling said:
EXCUSE ME? The other poster impugns MY character, impugns MY integrity, and you have the gall to scold me specifically and no one else? Now that is the very epitome of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Care to continue? If you can not comprehend simple English in my warning to everyone participating in this name calling (especially you) grab a dictionary and look up the term especially.
 
Rat Finkenstein said:
Ethics are something beyond the purview of Law. I wouldn't want the government attempting to legislate morality, But not being able to tell the difference between right and wrong is a serious mental flaw.
Click to expand...
Do you know what is an even bigger mental flaw? Believing that you are the sole arbiter of right and wrong for the rest of the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top