Wait, now it’s a crime against the intellectual property rights of the author to give a used book, or one from your library, as a present?
Suburban Plankton, are you still reading this thread? And do you still think I was arguing against a straw-man? 
It could be a book that I only want to read once. I could go to the library…but since I have a copy right here in my hand, why not read it?
That doesn’t seem to follow logically. Why would an ebook be a crappy present? I enjoy giving them and I enjoy receiving them. You aren’t making any sense now.
Why not both? Yes, I share and borrow books. And, yes, I read books that I’m giving as gifts.
This seems wrong to some of the people in this thread, and not to others. It appears to be wholly a matter of personal taste. Okay, fine: you don’t like it, you don’t have to do it. No one I’ve ever given a book to has objected in the slightest. In my family, it’s absolutely comme il faut. We’d all be astonished at it being otherwise.
I promise I won’t give any gift books to anyone who feels the way you and others here feel.
Thing is, it’s objectively a cheapskate move. If everyone is cool with being a cheapskate then I am not proposing sending anyone to jail, but there’s no point arguing that’s not what is going on. Everyone can continue arguing whether or not being a cheapskate is a moral or etiquette failure.
Absolutely with you. I can’t believe this is even a discussion.
Disagree. It isn’t “cheapskate.” It’s me, having a book in my house, and wanting to read it. There’s no downside. There’s no “victim.”
It isn’t “cheapskate” to make efficient use of things. To me, it’s an absurd worshiping of pointless abstractions to do otherwise. It’s like people who are all hung up on virginity.
I don’t re-use gift-wrapping paper, but I wouldn’t call people who do “cheapskates.” It seems entirely sensible.
(Heck, I don’t use gift-wrapping paper at all. Is that cheapskate?)
Sometimes it is.
“Hey there’s a book I think we would both like. I think I’ll buy it and you can read it after me”
“Cool bro”
“Yeah. Merry Christmas”
Joke or alternative completely not cheapskate lifestyle? You decide.
Well, yeah, that’s kinda what gift-giving is, at least from a certain perspective. So, you don’t like it? Don’t do it. But it’s tacky to pretend you’re doing it when your not.
Now, it may be that you’re not doing what many of us consider gift-giving, with the paper and the ceremony and so forth, and that everyone in your circle is cool with that. Which is fair enough, as long as it’s not passed of as the other.
Bullshit. There is no “pretending” here. You have a different belief than I do.
(“You don’t really like Brussels Sprouts. You’re just pretending.”)
Honestly, it wouldn’t have occurred to me to read a book before giving it to someone else. Page through it, yes, to see if I felt whoever I was giving it to would like it. Read it front to back? No way. If it’s a gift, I’m buying it for someone else, not me.
Now if I’ve got old books lying around and want to offer them to a friend before donating them, that’s something else. It’s like having a cup of coffee, deciding you’re really done with it and offering it to a companion so it doesn’t go to waste. Giving a gift should (IMHO, of course) be more special. Reading the book first almost seems like the recipient is an afterthought.
All that said, I would never turn away a free book that looked interesting, read or unread.
It would be wrong if I did it. 
If it’s a paperback that is, I can’t STAND unbent spines on a paperback book, so when I read them, I MUST break in the spine. So no, I wouldn’t do it. And if I bought someone a hardback, I wouldn’t read it at all (long boring story involving painful muscle condition, can’t really hold hardback books comfortably blah blah blah).
I’m still here 
Given that people on both sides of this argument have now made, argued for, and argued against, just about every possible angle surrounding this subject (and then some), I think that either the thread is just chock full of straw-men, or else we’ve managed to burn them all down…I cant really tell which at this point.
I’m simply amazed that so many people have such very strong feelings on the subject. When the question was first posed to me (Rhiannon8404, the OP, is my wife), my reaction was the same as hers (maybe that’s one of the reasons we’ve been married 20 years)…and it honestly never occurred to me that other people would see it differently.
Apparently, I was mistaken. 
There certainly is among some people, who are saying it’s ok to read a book before giving it because the recipient will never notice.
I’m afraid this discussion is akin to discussing ketchup on a hot dog. For someone who likes such a thing, no amount of words will make them realize that it is a violation of everything good in the world.
So too with these books. I will have to resign myself that there are fine and decent people who just cannot see what I perceive as blindingly obvious.
Reading a book already in my possession is not being a cheapskate. There are few books I’d buy for someone else that I would be completely unwilling to read. That doesn’t mean I’d choose the exact same books for myself. Where am I cheaping out when I read a book that I’d never buy for myself?
Normally I’d never have time to read a gift book anyway, but this is inspiring me to get started on my shopping now!
How about answering my question–is it okay to open the DVD if you can fix the tape back, or carry the purse if you can reattach the tag? And it that’s not okay, what exactly is the difference between that and reading the book?
And I don’t know that it really does naturally follow that a breach of etiquette is only a breach if there are witnesses. If I eat my reheated leftover pot pie with a salad fork instead of a dinner fork, no one (including me) will know or care. But it’s still a salad fork, ya know? To use an example that’s more relevant to modern society, if a man picks his nose in a forest and noone’s around to see it, is it still gross?
Are you under the impression that nose-picking in private is an etiquette violation?
Is pooping in private okay? Or is it best not to poop at all?
But they’re completely different. Both pooping and booger removal are necessary bodily functions. Ideally you’d use a tissue to avoid getting boogery hands, but I’d see that are more a hygiene issue than anything else. Shaking hands or eating while knowingly having booger residue on your fingers is just gross.
Etiquette shouldn’t prevent someone from performing required bodily functions. The purpose of etiquette is to encourage people to do things they know will make others comfortable. If everyone uses etiquette, in theory, everyone is comfortable and therefore has more comfortable social interactions - it just greases social wheels. And it also happens to apply to gift-giving. If it’s no biggie to you and you know the recipient feels the same way, who cares? But if you don’t know the person well enough to determine whether they’d think this is tacky, why on earth would you do it? The only reason to do so is your own personal convenience.
I was undrr the impression your question was why our position doesn’t just boil down to ‘it’s fine as long as no one finds out’.
[quote]
I’m not trying to be argumentative, I’m just…well, I’m having a hard time understanding this argument in a way that doesn’t translate to “it’s fine so long as nobody ever finds out.”
My answer I thought was responsive: that things that are etiquette violations are fine as long as no one notices, but things that are moral violations are not.
Given that I, myself, classify this issue (at most) as an etiquette issue, it therefore follows that it is fine as long as no one notices. So in that case, to answer your specific question, it is okay to carry a purse around.
And no, things like pooping or nose-picking are only “gross” if done in public. Naturally, one hopes that hand-washing is part of either process, before venturing into public …
You invite the good reverend over to your house. He’s your guest, but you are not of the same religion. He sits on the couch. Last night, you had a wild make-out session on that couch. No bodily fluids made it onto the couch, there is no way to tell the exciting events that transpired there. If the reverend knew about it, he’d be really, really uncomfortable sitting in that seat of sin. If you tell him about it, he’d feel judgmental, as you are not married. Tell him? Avoid make-outs, so as to not get in this situation?
I would argue it’s not “dishonest” in any way to not tell him - because it’s your buisness and not his what you do in your house before he became your guest. Moreover, it is more polite to not tell him - because it will make him uncomfortable for no purpose. It is absurd for you to change your habits altogether just to accomodate his beliefs, which you do not ascribe to. If he demands in advance that you reveal all such details, that demand is unreasonable. While one should strive to make guests comfortable, guests should not demand that hosts reveal all about their private affairs.
The position of many of the “antis” in this thread is somewhat analogous to the reverend. They have a particular view on this point. They wish everyone else, whether they believe in it or not, to ascribe to it. They wish to be informed if others don’t, even though there is no way to tell, so they can be properly outraged: to fail to do so is characterized as some sort of “dishonesty”.
Yeah, I didn’t think it was an apt comparison either, but that’s who is on the “anti” side here apparently–people who think it’s rude to pick your own nose even in private.
Perhaps this is why the book must not be read: it will likely be littered with boogers that have fallen from the reader’s nose? Or are some of us not just too classy to ever remove the boogers, but too classy to even produce them in the first place?
There have been many reasons suggested for prereading a book beyond “personal convenience,” but I don’t see what’s so terrible about this one anyway. Is it somehow less of a gift if I’m not inconvenienced enough? Is convenience something we ought to avoid for some reason?