I said this:
>fraud is any intentional misrepresentation
Did you not read my post? It looks to very inline with what you stated fraud is in your many definitions. Clearly I read the definition, I was aiming to simplify to make dialog possible.
My definition still aligns with yours.
And I still see it as fraud, and so would others. Seems you don't. and thats ok.
To say I should read fraud as though I couldn't look up the definitions, and then copy/paste one that literally contains what I said is disingenuous and straw Manish & ad hominem (and hostile) don't you think? Maybe thats why you call something borderline unethical as though it's a feat of engineering. As though we can now reward & celebrate unethical acts.
No, your definition does not align with mine at all. All elements I listed must be present for it to constitute as fraud. You cherrypicked the first part of the definition and then ignored the rest. The legal requirement for fraud is far stricter than the one you came up with.
Ah I see. Okay. Sorry to have been guilty I see this:
> Fraud is:
> * an intentional misrepresentation of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed;
> * made by one person to another;
> * with knowledge of its falsity;
> * for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies;
> * resulting in injury or damage.
Mariam Webster defines Fraud as:
> specifically : an act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
I think maybe you're fixating and cherry-picking too, on "legal" and court-found fraud specifically for what would lead to damages in court found on the said companies.
I am not focusing on what would be legally enforceable and referencable in a court of law. If most people would look at a definition of fraud, and then look at whats happening here, and see it as fraudulent, that if I'm one of those people I'm to call it fraud. And in this case our sample size is just 2: you and I. So 50% is what I'm operating off of as my sample size (ah self selecting, all the biases etc).
Though since the reality we find ourselves is is one where large corporate entities get bail outs, get to set their own rules and bend the law anyway, I think maybe we should not bias towards whats "legally" proved as fraud in the court room.
Thank you for engaging me here. This has been fun and insightful. Please forgive my hasty generalizations and any hostility I inadvertently sent your way.
I said this: >fraud is any intentional misrepresentation
Did you not read my post? It looks to very inline with what you stated fraud is in your many definitions. Clearly I read the definition, I was aiming to simplify to make dialog possible.
My definition still aligns with yours.
And I still see it as fraud, and so would others. Seems you don't. and thats ok.
To say I should read fraud as though I couldn't look up the definitions, and then copy/paste one that literally contains what I said is disingenuous and straw Manish & ad hominem (and hostile) don't you think? Maybe thats why you call something borderline unethical as though it's a feat of engineering. As though we can now reward & celebrate unethical acts.