Originally Posted by chosen1s

Posts like this one really concern me. How can anybody think a crime has only occurred if the victim can prove the criminal's guilt? I am going to assume Roufuss did not mean to phrase it this way.

So...more on topic - when somebody makes a post about ripping off Wal Mart and says in their OP "this isn't illegal since Wal Mart can't prove anything" (which we have all seen 100 times by now), are we saying that nobody is allowed to respond to that statement? Or say it's a touch more "gray" than that...say, several people begin filling threads with comments such as "You can forget about getting this deal at the Best Buys in XYZ city - I'm cleaning them out first thing in the morning and selling it all on Ebay Ha ha ha ha ha" - the CAG policy is to no longer discuss dishonesty or call that poster out on hording (or other actions that violate the spirit of CAG)?

I understand the need to cut down on the flame wars, but this seems like a nice big leap in the direction of moral ambiguity - and honestly sounds like a path that leads more in the direction of Fat Wallet than CAG. One thing I really like about CAG is that the voices for "higher ground" are louder than the voices crying "every man for himself" and "it's only illegal if you get caught!". Not to be melodramatic here, but it sounds to me like the calls for higher ground have just been silenced (or, at the very least, confined to an irrelevant corner of CAG).