Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3681729" data-attributes="member: 1656">See, I'd consider breaking an agreement to be a violation of the code (frowned upon, but not insta-fall), but breaking an agreement in order to kill the other party to be a gross violation of the code.I think there is a difference, and it's the same one Kahuna Burger referenced earlier in discussion of the cruise ship.In one case, you're entering into an agreement with a party of undisclosed identity, aware that the identity is undisclosed.&nbsp; In the other, you're entering into an agreement with a party whose identity is not that which is presented, and you are unaware of any ambiguity.Let's take two gameshows.&nbsp; The first gameshow says &quot;You can take the hundred dollars, or you can take what's in the bag.&quot;&nbsp; The second gameshow says &quot;You can take the hundred dollars, or you can take what's in the bag, worth two hundred dollars!&quot;The contestants on both shows choose the bag, and open it to find a piece of cheese.&nbsp; The first host says &quot;Well, I guess you should have chosen the money.&quot;&nbsp; The second host says &quot;Well, I guess you should have chosen the money.&nbsp; We lied about the two hundred dollar value.&quot;Can the first contestant be legitimately angry that the prize turned out to be worth less than the money? Can the second contestant be legitimately angry that the prize turned out to be worth less than the money?&nbsp; Is there a difference in the two situations?-Hyp.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hypersmurf, post: 3681729, member: 1656"] See, I'd consider breaking an agreement to be a violation of the code (frowned upon, but not insta-fall), but breaking an agreement [i]in order to kill the other party[/i] to be a gross violation of the code. I think there [i]is[/i] a difference, and it's the same one Kahuna Burger referenced earlier in discussion of the cruise ship. In one case, you're entering into an agreement with a party of undisclosed identity, aware that the identity is undisclosed. In the other, you're entering into an agreement with a party whose identity is not that which is presented, and you are unaware of any ambiguity. Let's take two gameshows. The first gameshow says "You can take the hundred dollars, or you can take what's in the bag." The second gameshow says "You can take the hundred dollars, or you can take what's in the bag, worth [i]two[/i] hundred dollars!" The contestants on both shows choose the bag, and open it to find a piece of cheese. The first host says "Well, I guess you should have chosen the money." The second host says "Well, I guess you should have chosen the money. We lied about the two hundred dollar value." Can the first contestant be legitimately angry that the prize turned out to be worth less than the money? Can the second contestant be legitimately angry that the prize turned out to be worth less than the money? Is there a difference in the two situations? -Hyp. [/QUOTE]

Verification