From wikipedia:

"In an analogy, two concepts, objects, or events proposed to be similar in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with another property. The premise is that A has property X, and thus B must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B). In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not share property X (e.g. size). [1] Thus, even if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they are the same size. One who makes an invalid analogy or comparison is often said to be "comparing apples and oranges"."

Ok so being second hand sold is a similarity that material goods have with games. How about being pirated? No? False analogy. Try again.

Why are we arguing piracy? ive stated numerous times that Piracy is horrible to which you only seem to be agreeing to. Now putting the issue of piracy aside except to say whether or not used games sales are better or worse (for game developers)  than the outcome of piracy. Now "come off your throne" and see your bias against used games for what it is: A Double Standard.

I'm arguing that the used market is as bad as piracy, not that piracy is bad. It is bad, and used game market is just as worse if not more so.

piracy is the only immoral all the others are ok. i rented lost oddessy and if a second comes out i will buy it lol.

^ Ok but being bad for the game market does not make it morally wrong. We are arguing the morality of selling used games in relation to the market. We both agree that both hurt game sales and developers profits but piracy is by far more morally repugnant. Because with used games we lose the ability to play them (eg we transfer ownership) and we would have to buy another copy if we wanted to play it ever again. Same cannot be said about piracy.

Fixed!

Anyway, lets have an objective look at this shall we?

Lending: You bought the game, it is your right to let others use YOUR disc.In lending, you do get the game back, and if the person you are lending it to likes the game enough, they may go out and buy a copy.

Verdict: Moral, You payed for the game, you should be able to lend to who you want, when you want, it would be immoral to say otherwise.

Second hand market: Actually a very good thing for game devs. IF the second hand market did not exist, fewer games would be sold, after all, lees people are going to chance spending $50.00 (or so) on a new game that they don't know if they will like, if they know they can't sell it and recoup some of that money. Also, if a person only has a limited game budget, and likes buying games as soon as they come out, they can free up money for new games by selling old ones. 

Verdict: Moral, actually a very good thing for the market.

Pirating: Some could say this is akin to lending, however, when you "lend" out a compy of the game for anybody on theinternet to grab, you know full well you won't be getting that "copy" back.

Verdic: Immoral, you don't get your game back, and the people who have a copy are not very likely to buy the game in the future...why bother if you already have it?

Renting: Same as lending, with the added bonus of you are keeping another game retailer alive. no renting = fewer game retailers and less competition. as well as less exposure for some lesser kinown games. Also, I believe renters have to pay royalty fees don't they?

Verdict: Moral, keeping retailers open and available to sell games, game devs are paid royalties???

Second hand shops: Same as second hand market.

Let me put it in simple terms:

Piracy: One person pays $50 for a game. People pirate the game, and an infinite amount of people are allowed access to the game.

Second hand: One person pays $50 for a game. This person may sell it, but only one person is allowed to play the game at any given time.

That last part makes all the difference. It means in order for x amount of people to play at any given time, at least x amount of people would need to have bought new copies. In the piracy case, only one copy needs to be sold.

You lose the ability to play them and instead you get money with which you can get something with. With piracy you can't do anything with it, can't go get a meal at a restaurant or anything. Used game market people are far greedier than pirates.

except pirates basically get $X worth of free software. So they are greedier than second hand sellers.

Heres an example to illustrate my point

Pirate downloads Uncharted 2. Gets $60. Its a game that he would have had to pay $60 for this game and by pirating it he saved himself $60 so he basically earned $60. So he earned a net of +$60.

The second hand seller BUYS uncharted 2 for $60 gets tired of it and sells it for $30 back to gamestop. He ends up with a net of -$30.

So Pirate basically earns $60 and the second hand seller loses $30. now tell me how the latter is more greedy?

Thus pirates are more greedy than secondhand sellers!

Only pirating is a little immoral