TY for warning us about the state of your being under the influence of a mind altering substance. I'll keep that in mind as I reply.
Oh, my. So what follows is a "barstool epiphany" of sorts....Okay, I'll keep that in mind.
I think the point is effectively identified in the OP. Have you read the first post of this thread?
The legal and moral/ethical dimensions are also addressed in the OP.
You are certainly free to feel that way, but we've already shown, (1) "wannabes" are not the only people who buy fakes and (2) the "wannabe" driver for buying fakes isn't inextricably linked with the other reasons for doing so. (See the reference links provided in the "Other" section of this post:
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...&postcount=606)
I agree; it's not different.
Red:
Can you please describe the false image a person earning $300K/year and working in the PRC or U.S. might be attempting to project by wearing a fake Patek?
Without going into every possible vagary of life situations in which such persons may find themselves, it's safe to say that an individual earning $300K/year earns more than enough to buy an authentic Patek Philippe watch. So buying and wearing a fake Patek Philippe watch isn't going to aid them in projecting an image they are otherwise incapable of projecting.
[You were doing pretty well, aside from seeming not having read the first post of this thread, until you confounded the only real argument against fakes -- the legal one -- with the "wannabe" ideas. I think the cocktails are now kicking in.]
Since you gave fair warning at the outset of your post, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that when you wrote the text in red you were referring to trademark infringement.
Without a doubt the booze has kicked in. This is now the second time in this post in which you allude to there being a connection between the illegality of buying fake watches and the immorality of doing so -- ...What else is to to be when one conjoins a legal matter with the phrase "it's wrong," for "wrong" implies the moral dimension whereas "illegal" constrains the statement to the legal aspects? Neither time did you attempt to develop the point. I suspect that were you not drinking, you'd have posted not a knee-jerk reaction, but instead spent a few minutes actually thinking about the question
I happen to think that making and buying fake watches are illegal acts, but I don't think there's any immorality associated with doing so. There are plenty of illegal acts that lack an immoral dimension in their commission:
- Under age drinking
- Exceeding the speed limit
- Aiding legally enslaved people in escaping their bonds
- Overlooking a poor person's theft or chicanery in obtaining a minor item
Morally breaking the law can be seen differently according to ones moral standards. In order for a society to function, there are rules that we must follow. Many people have the idea that if something is against the law it is wrong. Something might be wrong and something might be against the law, but just because something is wrong doesn't make it against the law, and just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong.
I'm going to stop there because the relationship between illegality and immorality is not a new one. There are a plenty of WWW resources that discuss it quite effectively and comprehensively. Here is one writer's thinking on the matter:
http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/moralityandlaw.htm .
If you read it in a sober state, I think you'll find that the "it's wrong" tack and the "it's illegal" tack cannot be aligned well with regard to making/buying fake watches. Why not? Because unlike illegal acts like murder or grand theft, and so on, the corporations whose rights and privileges are infringed upon by the production and sale of fake watches don't, as would be so for murder or grand theft, uniformly and consistently even bother to press charges against the perpetrators.
Conclusion:
So getting back to your first question, the point is that all the griping about folks wearing/buying fake watches is baseless and nothing more that people complaining because they sought to buy "something" (other than just a watch) and they paid "whatever" to do so; however, there are people running around who seemingly -- to strangers at least -- get that very same "something" even though they paid far, far less. The point is that if anyone should complain about fake watches it should be folks who are members of three groups:
- Owners of the trademarks that have been usurped.
- Owners of fakes who were duped into buying fakes.
- Owners of fakes who knowingly bought fakes and who have found the performance of the fake watch does not meet their expectations.
Everyone else really doesn't have anything to complain about. Accordingly, it doesn't matter that someone other than they wear/own/buy a fake watch.
All the best.