I'm not sure if this belongs on the political page, but I suspect it's the better place.
Obama/McCain - there that takes care of that.
Scenario:
You and spouse go to a national-chain pet store. You make numerous purchases of various dollar amounts (including a couple of live animals), to the tune of $275. An 'associate' was involved through most of the process, helping select items and negotiating over the price of one of the animals. The associate accompanies you to the transaction register and hands the live animal paperwork to the checkout associate.
Upon arrival at home (20 miles away), it is discovered that a $75 item did not get paid for.
What do you do? What thought process do you use to arrive at what you will do? Will what you do be the RIGHT thing to do? What is your REAL JUSTIFICATION for what you do/don't do about the situation?
Obama/McCain - there that takes care of that.
Scenario:
You and spouse go to a national-chain pet store. You make numerous purchases of various dollar amounts (including a couple of live animals), to the tune of $275. An 'associate' was involved through most of the process, helping select items and negotiating over the price of one of the animals. The associate accompanies you to the transaction register and hands the live animal paperwork to the checkout associate.
Upon arrival at home (20 miles away), it is discovered that a $75 item did not get paid for.
What do you do? What thought process do you use to arrive at what you will do? Will what you do be the RIGHT thing to do? What is your REAL JUSTIFICATION for what you do/don't do about the situation?
You return the item or the cash expeditiously, either by returning to the store or sending the money or item by other means. I arrived at that conclusion because any other decision would be considered theft. That's the right thing to do. <b>PERIOD!</b> The real question is, does one give a fuck about what is right and wrong?
-D-
-D-
If you know the associate's name I would go and inform them of the oversight. Since the days drawer has been counted either they got in trouble or they didn't. Unless an inventory was also done the oversight will not have been noticed, but it will be once inventory is done. If the associate tells you not to worry about it then you are morally and ethically off the hook. (this is a good possibility so as to avoid them admitting making a very costly mistake to their employer). If the Associate is unknown or unavailable request to speak to a manager, they may very well reward your honesty with a discount or something to that effect. But either way ethically and morally you need to at least attemp payment. Just my $.02
Posted By: CHRKE2 Posted on:
Nov 25, 2008 - 5:27 am
You and spouse go to a national-chain pet store.
What do you do?
What thought process do you use to arrive at what you will do?
===============================================================
Why? Why did you tell us that it was a national chain pet store? What difference will it make whether it was national chain or a kid selling goldfish?
Give them a shout and let them decide what to do.
I never fucked anybody over in my life didn't have it coming to them. You got that? All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one. Do you understand? That piece of shit up there, I never liked him, I never trusted him. For all I know he had me set up and had my friend Angel Fernandez killed. But that's history. I'm here, he's not. Do you wanna go on with me, you say it. You don't, then you make a move.
Nov 25, 2008 - 5:27 am
You and spouse go to a national-chain pet store.
What do you do?
What thought process do you use to arrive at what you will do?
===============================================================
Why? Why did you tell us that it was a national chain pet store? What difference will it make whether it was national chain or a kid selling goldfish?
Give them a shout and let them decide what to do.
I never fucked anybody over in my life didn't have it coming to them. You got that? All I have in this world is my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one. Do you understand? That piece of shit up there, I never liked him, I never trusted him. For all I know he had me set up and had my friend Angel Fernandez killed. But that's history. I'm here, he's not. Do you wanna go on with me, you say it. You don't, then you make a move.
aklim - what?
Posted By: CHRKE2 Reply posted on:
Nov 25, 2008 - 9:28 pm
aklim - what?
===============================================================
A quote from the movie Scarface.
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003932/quotes
Nov 25, 2008 - 9:28 pm
aklim - what?
===============================================================
A quote from the movie Scarface.
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003932/quotes
"If the associate tells you not to worry about it then you are morally and ethically off the hook. (this is a good possibility so as to avoid them admitting making a very costly mistake to their employer). "
<hr>
Last time I checked associates, at most stores, are not at liberty to give away merchandise. You are ethically (fuck morals) obligated to return the item or pay for it. An employee has no right to give away property that doesn't belong to them unless instructed to do so by the owner.
-D-
<hr>
Last time I checked associates, at most stores, are not at liberty to give away merchandise. You are ethically (fuck morals) obligated to return the item or pay for it. An employee has no right to give away property that doesn't belong to them unless instructed to do so by the owner.
-D-
I would probably call them and let them know, but I would not return to the store. If they want their money or the item back they will have to come get it. As an example, we went to KFC and bought a 7 piece meal upon getting it home there were only 6 pieces. We called and was told we could come back to get other piece. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They did say they would send us a coupon though, but we have yet to recieve it.
Posted By: HIGHWAY1 Reply posted on:
Nov 26, 2008 - 4:42 pm
I would probably call them and let them know, but I would not return to the store. If they want their money or the item back they will have to come get it. As an example, we went to KFC and bought a 7 piece meal upon getting it home there were only 6 pieces. We called and was told we could come back to get other piece. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They did say they would send us a coupon though, but we have yet to recieve it.
===============================================================
McDonnalds has been pretty good about that. Of course, they take my name down and the next time I am there, they have given me a discount on my meal for the most part.
Nov 26, 2008 - 4:42 pm
I would probably call them and let them know, but I would not return to the store. If they want their money or the item back they will have to come get it. As an example, we went to KFC and bought a 7 piece meal upon getting it home there were only 6 pieces. We called and was told we could come back to get other piece. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. They did say they would send us a coupon though, but we have yet to recieve it.
===============================================================
McDonnalds has been pretty good about that. Of course, they take my name down and the next time I am there, they have given me a discount on my meal for the most part.
If it doesn't belong to you and you knowingly keep it, you are a thief... plain and simple.
-D-
-D-
To absolutely no one in particular:
If a place of business overcharges you and you don't detect it, are they expected to, and will they, come knocking at your door?
Should businesses expect to rely on the ETHICS of the consumer to point out when their system has failed?
If you get home and find out WalMart has undercharged you $6.60 on a $25.00 purchase, y'all are going to go running back to the store and fork over $6.60?
Do you treat the Mom and Pop store the same way you treat WalMart?
Have you bitched about corporate GREED?
I once submitted a post asking people's opinions on how they feel about crossing social lines for 'play'. It didn't generate much response, but those who did reply almost uniformly stated that social class has no bearing on who they play with.
At first I didn't believe it - then I realized it wasn't particularly likely that people would reply admitting that they look down (or up) their noses at people in the lifestyle. Bullshit!
And now, it would appear that most everyone feels ethically bound to make sure that stores don't lose money due to a faulty business practice? Bullshit again!
Are some posters being less than "honest" with themselves, or do only "honest" people reply?
Everyone feel the need to say the right thing for public consumption all of a sudden?
If a place of business overcharges you and you don't detect it, are they expected to, and will they, come knocking at your door?
Should businesses expect to rely on the ETHICS of the consumer to point out when their system has failed?
If you get home and find out WalMart has undercharged you $6.60 on a $25.00 purchase, y'all are going to go running back to the store and fork over $6.60?
Do you treat the Mom and Pop store the same way you treat WalMart?
Have you bitched about corporate GREED?
I once submitted a post asking people's opinions on how they feel about crossing social lines for 'play'. It didn't generate much response, but those who did reply almost uniformly stated that social class has no bearing on who they play with.
At first I didn't believe it - then I realized it wasn't particularly likely that people would reply admitting that they look down (or up) their noses at people in the lifestyle. Bullshit!
And now, it would appear that most everyone feels ethically bound to make sure that stores don't lose money due to a faulty business practice? Bullshit again!
Are some posters being less than "honest" with themselves, or do only "honest" people reply?
Everyone feel the need to say the right thing for public consumption all of a sudden?
Posted By: CHRKE2 Reply posted on:
Nov 27, 2008 - 2:05 am
If a place of business overcharges you and you don't detect it, are they expected to, and will they, come knocking at your door? Should businesses expect to rely on the ETHICS of the consumer to point out when their system has failed?
Do you treat the Mom and Pop store the same way you treat WalMart?
Have you bitched about corporate GREED?
I once submitted a post asking people's opinions on how they feel about crossing social lines for 'play'. It didn't generate much response, but those who did reply almost uniformly stated that social class has no bearing on who they play with.
Everyone feel the need to say the right thing for public consumption all of a sudden?
=============================================================
In Utopia, yes. In the real world, I wouldn't count on it.
I don't usually go to Mom & Pop stores but to answer your question, yes.
No
As long as they meet certain standards of hygiene and look decent and not be jerks, I don't really care.
Haven't felt that yet. In my case, it is simply policy. OTOH, once they do cross the line with me, all bets are off. Then I get to feel good when I get to scam them.
Nov 27, 2008 - 2:05 am
If a place of business overcharges you and you don't detect it, are they expected to, and will they, come knocking at your door? Should businesses expect to rely on the ETHICS of the consumer to point out when their system has failed?
Do you treat the Mom and Pop store the same way you treat WalMart?
Have you bitched about corporate GREED?
I once submitted a post asking people's opinions on how they feel about crossing social lines for 'play'. It didn't generate much response, but those who did reply almost uniformly stated that social class has no bearing on who they play with.
Everyone feel the need to say the right thing for public consumption all of a sudden?
=============================================================
In Utopia, yes. In the real world, I wouldn't count on it.
I don't usually go to Mom & Pop stores but to answer your question, yes.
No
As long as they meet certain standards of hygiene and look decent and not be jerks, I don't really care.
Haven't felt that yet. In my case, it is simply policy. OTOH, once they do cross the line with me, all bets are off. Then I get to feel good when I get to scam them.
CHRKE2,
If course, if there is a way for them to detect that they overcharged you, with like a visa transaction, they are obligated to refund you. However, with a cash transaction, how would they know who to give it back to???
The bottom line is that if you know you possess someone else's property and you know who they are and you are able to return it, then you are obligated to do so. I think it's pretty clear.
-D-
If course, if there is a way for them to detect that they overcharged you, with like a visa transaction, they are obligated to refund you. However, with a cash transaction, how would they know who to give it back to???
The bottom line is that if you know you possess someone else's property and you know who they are and you are able to return it, then you are obligated to do so. I think it's pretty clear.
-D-
"Last time I checked associates, at most stores, are not at liberty to give away merchandise. You are ethically (fuck morals) obligated to return the item or pay for it. An employee has no right to give away property that doesn't belong to them unless instructed to do so by the owner. "
Correct most associates are not at liberty to give away merchandise, however, as a non supporter of Spread the wealth, I am willing to give the employee the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest oversight. If that employee would rather give the item away than face the music of making a mistake, that is on them. The Employee does not have the right to give away the merchandise, yet that person has been placed in a position of responsibility by thre employer. If the employee were to over charge you for something the employer will say "pay more attention to what you are doing." and turn around and deposit the money with the rest of the day's take. Would the employer do the same if the till came up short? Probably not. Odds are, for that same $75.00 someone is going to lose their job over an honest mistake not theft. As a representative of the store the employee takes away the burden of theft by the consumer once the consumer brings the error to their attention. From that point on it is all the employee's responsibility.
If you found a wallet with $75.00 and no I.D. in it are you morally or ethically responsible for calling the police and turning in the money? If you find one with the I.D. in it, would you go to their house and give it back? Most people would answer yes in a public forum but put to the test, I would bet that the majority of the time the cash goes in the pocket and the wallet in the nearest trash can. The store can handle a $75.00 mistake made by an employee better than the average joe could stand to lose $75.00. An Attempt to make things right is all that need be done.
Correct most associates are not at liberty to give away merchandise, however, as a non supporter of Spread the wealth, I am willing to give the employee the benefit of the doubt that it was an honest oversight. If that employee would rather give the item away than face the music of making a mistake, that is on them. The Employee does not have the right to give away the merchandise, yet that person has been placed in a position of responsibility by thre employer. If the employee were to over charge you for something the employer will say "pay more attention to what you are doing." and turn around and deposit the money with the rest of the day's take. Would the employer do the same if the till came up short? Probably not. Odds are, for that same $75.00 someone is going to lose their job over an honest mistake not theft. As a representative of the store the employee takes away the burden of theft by the consumer once the consumer brings the error to their attention. From that point on it is all the employee's responsibility.
If you found a wallet with $75.00 and no I.D. in it are you morally or ethically responsible for calling the police and turning in the money? If you find one with the I.D. in it, would you go to their house and give it back? Most people would answer yes in a public forum but put to the test, I would bet that the majority of the time the cash goes in the pocket and the wallet in the nearest trash can. The store can handle a $75.00 mistake made by an employee better than the average joe could stand to lose $75.00. An Attempt to make things right is all that need be done.
The employee wouldn't give it to you if you relinquished it at the store. Again, it's your obligation to return the item period. Once you've turned it over, it's returned. If the employee tells you to keep it, he or she is just aiding you in a crime. If the employee "gives" it to you, the employee is committing a crime and you are committing one by taking it. THEY ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO GIVE PROPERTY AWAY! PERIOD! If you accept it, you are then accepting property that belongs to the owner and not the associate. Sorry, you don't ever have a right to take shit that doesn't belong to you.
<hr>
<i>"If you found a wallet with $75.00 and no I.D. in it are you morally or ethically responsible for calling the police and turning in the money? If you find one with the I.D. in it, would you go to their house and give it back? Most people would answer yes in a public forum but put to the test, I would bet that the majority of the time the cash goes in the pocket and the wallet in the nearest trash can. The store can handle a $75.00 mistake made by an employee better than the average joe could stand to lose $75.00. An Attempt to make things right is all that need be done. "</i>
<hr>
1) Yes you should take the wallet to the police. Whether most would fail a integrity test is irrelevant to the argument. Just because the majority would do the unethical thing, doesn't make it right.
2) Ethically, a store should be donating unaccounted overages to a charity. Any overage that they can trace to a credit card should be returned. That's what should happen. Does it? NO!
-D-
<hr>
<i>"If you found a wallet with $75.00 and no I.D. in it are you morally or ethically responsible for calling the police and turning in the money? If you find one with the I.D. in it, would you go to their house and give it back? Most people would answer yes in a public forum but put to the test, I would bet that the majority of the time the cash goes in the pocket and the wallet in the nearest trash can. The store can handle a $75.00 mistake made by an employee better than the average joe could stand to lose $75.00. An Attempt to make things right is all that need be done. "</i>
<hr>
1) Yes you should take the wallet to the police. Whether most would fail a integrity test is irrelevant to the argument. Just because the majority would do the unethical thing, doesn't make it right.
2) Ethically, a store should be donating unaccounted overages to a charity. Any overage that they can trace to a credit card should be returned. That's what should happen. Does it? NO!
-D-
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Nov 27, 2008 - 10:43 pm
Ethically, a store should be donating unaccounted overages to a charity. Any overage that they can trace to a credit card should be returned. That's what should happen. Does it? NO!
===============================================================
Ethically, a patron should make an attempt to return the unpaid merchandise or pay for it. That is what should happen. Does it? No! Ethically, a person should not shoplift. That's what should happen. Does it? NO!
Nov 27, 2008 - 10:43 pm
Ethically, a store should be donating unaccounted overages to a charity. Any overage that they can trace to a credit card should be returned. That's what should happen. Does it? NO!
===============================================================
Ethically, a patron should make an attempt to return the unpaid merchandise or pay for it. That is what should happen. Does it? No! Ethically, a person should not shoplift. That's what should happen. Does it? NO!
Posted By: TOPFREEINGA Reply posted on:
Nov 27, 2008 - 9:13 pm
The store can handle a $75.00 mistake made by an employee better than the average joe could stand to lose $75.00.
==============================================================
Should that matter though? If you want to talk ethics, it doesn't matter whether a person can handle it or not. It should be either wrong or right and not based on whether you an absorb a loss or not. I mean, if I stole $20 from Bill Gates, could it be ok because he could afford it easily whereas if I stole $20 from a college student who could not absorb the loss as well as Bill, it is not wrong? If you want to talk ethics, it is either wrong or right and it cuts both ways, I would think.
Nov 27, 2008 - 9:13 pm
The store can handle a $75.00 mistake made by an employee better than the average joe could stand to lose $75.00.
==============================================================
Should that matter though? If you want to talk ethics, it doesn't matter whether a person can handle it or not. It should be either wrong or right and not based on whether you an absorb a loss or not. I mean, if I stole $20 from Bill Gates, could it be ok because he could afford it easily whereas if I stole $20 from a college student who could not absorb the loss as well as Bill, it is not wrong? If you want to talk ethics, it is either wrong or right and it cuts both ways, I would think.
"Ethically, a patron should make an attempt to return the unpaid merchandise or pay for it. That is what should happen. Does it? No! Ethically, a person should not shoplift. That's what should happen. Does it? NO! "
<hr>
Yeah, you are just repeating what I already said. Thanks though.
-D-
P.S. It's wrong whether you can take the loss or not. Theft is theft.
<hr>
Yeah, you are just repeating what I already said. Thanks though.
-D-
P.S. It's wrong whether you can take the loss or not. Theft is theft.
When I posted this topic, I hoped to state it as neutrally as possible. It actually happened (to us - duh!). How it was resolved is of no consequence, AND, no matter my comments, I won
Regardless of your situtation. The right thing to do is to return what does not belong to you if you are able.
-D-
-D-
What can you live with?
It all boils down to your personal integrity... I ask the same... What can you live with?
As I said before I would call and allow them to come get it. Why would a person be obligated to go back at their own expense because of the stores error? How many times have you found a store's error in your favor and had them come to you to rectify it? But then I don't give it any thought because I'm too lazy and uneducated. Now if the owner is too lazy to come get his product or the money for it, then it would be ok to keep the item.
The point of the whole store can handle the $75.00 loss example was not that since it is a store and they can handle the loss so fuck em. It was the simple fact that people have no problem keeping something they find, whether they are entitled to it or not, yet those same people feel obligated to point out a mistake that was made in their favor. A double standard of sorts. Regardless of what everyone on this site says it is you that has to make the decision that you will be able to live with and the hell with everyone else's opinion.
Posted By: TOPFREEINGA Reply posted on:
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:41 am
The point of the whole store can handle the $75.00 loss example was not that since it is a store and they can handle the loss so fuck em. It was the simple fact that people have no problem keeping something they find, whether they are entitled to it or not, yet those same people feel obligated to point out a mistake that was made in their favor. A double standard of sorts. Regardless of what everyone on this site says it is you that has to make the decision that you will be able to live with and the hell with everyone else's opinion.
==============================================================
That was why I asked why he told us it was part of a national chain. People tend to say "fuck them" to the national chains and get more righteous with the "Mom and Pop" stores. People tend to say "Big Chain"? Fuck them. They can take a loss. "Mom an Pop"? Oh, we can't do that. Sorta of a double standard.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:41 am
The point of the whole store can handle the $75.00 loss example was not that since it is a store and they can handle the loss so fuck em. It was the simple fact that people have no problem keeping something they find, whether they are entitled to it or not, yet those same people feel obligated to point out a mistake that was made in their favor. A double standard of sorts. Regardless of what everyone on this site says it is you that has to make the decision that you will be able to live with and the hell with everyone else's opinion.
==============================================================
That was why I asked why he told us it was part of a national chain. People tend to say "fuck them" to the national chains and get more righteous with the "Mom and Pop" stores. People tend to say "Big Chain"? Fuck them. They can take a loss. "Mom an Pop"? Oh, we can't do that. Sorta of a double standard.
It's all wrong.
The problem with declaring it "wrong" is what to do? You know that if the store made a mistake, they wouldn't bother to come to your door and apologize with a check or cash in hand. So this begs the question "If YOU don't do the "right" thing, why am I obligated to do the right thing?"
That is the dumbest "little kid" reasoning I've heard from an adult in awhile. You're obligated, because it's what is right. Just because other people do shit that's wrong doesn't mean you should. People rob banks and murder too, should that give you the right? HAHA!! WOW!
-D-
-D-
Notice only 5 people have responded to this thread! I actually think that most folks will see it as their gain and the stores loss. Just like me on minor things, I'm going to go back to pay an additional couple of bucks. I don't think so. I do not believe anyone else would either. Why would you? What if you never checked your receipt, would it still be wrong?
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:29 pm
That is the dumbest "little kid" reasoning I've heard from an adult in awhile. You're obligated, because it's what is right. Just because other people do shit that's wrong doesn't mean you should. People rob banks and murder too, should that give you the right? HAHA!! WOW!
===============================================================
Do the words "hard sell" ever come to your mind? Your argument IS a hard sell. In the case of murder and robbery, there are laws AND enforcement which makes the consequence unpalatable and gives pause to the would be perp. In this case, there is only a bunch of words. I'm not even sure there is a law against that. I know unless the sum is large, there is little recourse and even less enforcement. Your argument of obligation because it is right is only good with the few that will share your opinion of what is right and will do it "just cause". Most will use what you call the "little kid" argument and keep it. I have worked in retail and that has been my experience. You may ask "Why have you called the customer back when the mistake was in your favor?". The answer is simple. I use it as advertisement and hope that when the customer has an equal choice between me and another company, this one act will tip the balance. Also, if I make an error in my favor in future that they catch, they will give me the benefit of the doubt instead of reaming me out. What happens when the error is in their favor? I have to call them about it since it is in MY interests.
Nov 29, 2008 - 9:29 pm
That is the dumbest "little kid" reasoning I've heard from an adult in awhile. You're obligated, because it's what is right. Just because other people do shit that's wrong doesn't mean you should. People rob banks and murder too, should that give you the right? HAHA!! WOW!
===============================================================
Do the words "hard sell" ever come to your mind? Your argument IS a hard sell. In the case of murder and robbery, there are laws AND enforcement which makes the consequence unpalatable and gives pause to the would be perp. In this case, there is only a bunch of words. I'm not even sure there is a law against that. I know unless the sum is large, there is little recourse and even less enforcement. Your argument of obligation because it is right is only good with the few that will share your opinion of what is right and will do it "just cause". Most will use what you call the "little kid" argument and keep it. I have worked in retail and that has been my experience. You may ask "Why have you called the customer back when the mistake was in your favor?". The answer is simple. I use it as advertisement and hope that when the customer has an equal choice between me and another company, this one act will tip the balance. Also, if I make an error in my favor in future that they catch, they will give me the benefit of the doubt instead of reaming me out. What happens when the error is in their favor? I have to call them about it since it is in MY interests.
When terrorists feel they are totally within their RIGHT to kill innocent people, and when there is an actual
Do the words "hard sell" ever come to your mind? Your argument IS a hard sell. In the case of murder and robbery, there are laws AND enforcement which makes the consequence unpalatable and gives pause to the would be perp. In this case, there is only a bunch of words. I'm not even sure there is a law against that. I know unless the sum is large, there is little recourse and even less enforcement. Your argument of obligation because it is right is only good with the few that will share your opinion of what is right and will do it "just cause". Most will use what you call the "little kid" argument and keep it.
<font color="#ff0000">That is exactly why there is murder, rape, theft in the world. People that think it's ok to take and not give. "Most" do not think the way you do or the world would be totally in the shitter. There is still enough people with integrity, unlike you, that keep the shitheads like you from totally fucking it up. I can't believe you even got your citizenship. </font>
I have worked in retail and that has been my experience. You may ask "Why have you called the customer back when the mistake was in your favor?".
<font color="#ff0000">You call them back because the money is theirs and not yours. The reason why most retailers don't return mistakes, because it's impossible to tell where cash comes from. As far as checks and visas, it's not returned, because they're not audited by the government for ethics. I can guarantee you if they were audited and heavily penalized for keeping money they're not supposed to, like utility company overages are, you can believe it would be different. As far as individuals are concerned, it's also up to their integrity not to keep that which does no belong to them. Be sure to let me know where you live though. Since you don't thing taking shit that doesn't belong to you is wrong, I'd love to come over and take your shit. Dude you are a nay saying idiot, with no common sense.</font>
The answer is simple. I use it as advertisement and hope that when the customer has an equal choice between me and another company, this one act will tip the balance.
<font color="#ff0000">Wow, not stealing, gives you the edge. Run that in the paper too and get back to me about how that works. HAHA!
</font>
Also, if I make an error in my favor in future that they catch, they will give me the benefit of the doubt instead of reaming me out. What happens when the error is in their favor? I have to call them about it since it is in MY interests. <font color="#ff0000">It's up to them to do the right thing. If you can proves you overcharged with a receipt, go get your money. Obviously a clerk at a store isn't gonna know anything after your leave and are in your car. They're already serving the next customer. If you fuck someone and know you did it... RETURN THE SHIT!!!! </font>
-D-
<font color="#ff0000">That is exactly why there is murder, rape, theft in the world. People that think it's ok to take and not give. "Most" do not think the way you do or the world would be totally in the shitter. There is still enough people with integrity, unlike you, that keep the shitheads like you from totally fucking it up. I can't believe you even got your citizenship. </font>
I have worked in retail and that has been my experience. You may ask "Why have you called the customer back when the mistake was in your favor?".
<font color="#ff0000">You call them back because the money is theirs and not yours. The reason why most retailers don't return mistakes, because it's impossible to tell where cash comes from. As far as checks and visas, it's not returned, because they're not audited by the government for ethics. I can guarantee you if they were audited and heavily penalized for keeping money they're not supposed to, like utility company overages are, you can believe it would be different. As far as individuals are concerned, it's also up to their integrity not to keep that which does no belong to them. Be sure to let me know where you live though. Since you don't thing taking shit that doesn't belong to you is wrong, I'd love to come over and take your shit. Dude you are a nay saying idiot, with no common sense.</font>
The answer is simple. I use it as advertisement and hope that when the customer has an equal choice between me and another company, this one act will tip the balance.
<font color="#ff0000">Wow, not stealing, gives you the edge. Run that in the paper too and get back to me about how that works. HAHA!
</font>
Also, if I make an error in my favor in future that they catch, they will give me the benefit of the doubt instead of reaming me out. What happens when the error is in their favor? I have to call them about it since it is in MY interests. <font color="#ff0000">It's up to them to do the right thing. If you can proves you overcharged with a receipt, go get your money. Obviously a clerk at a store isn't gonna know anything after your leave and are in your car. They're already serving the next customer. If you fuck someone and know you did it... RETURN THE SHIT!!!! </font>
-D-
Posted By: CHRKE2 Reply posted on:
Nov 30, 2008 - 12:21 pm
When terrorists feel they are totally within their RIGHT to kill innocent people, and when there is an actual
Nov 30, 2008 - 12:21 pm
When terrorists feel they are totally within their RIGHT to kill innocent people, and when there is an actual
Wrong is what the society you live in deems as wrong. Theft in most societies is wrong, to include our. Abortion is still in the air as many, like myself, don't put a quality on life until a frontal lobe is developed. So, until abortion is consider by our society as murder, it's not the same thing. A man taking another mans life to save his life or the life of a third party is also deemed a justified homicide in our culture. So, again... If you take shit that doesn't belong to you, you are wrong. PERIOD!
-D-
-D-
Doesn't our society deem swinging to be wrong???????????????
osted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Nov 30, 2008 - 2:10 pm
"Most" do not think the way you do or the world would be totally in the shitter. There is still enough people with integrity, unlike you, that keep the shitheads like you from totally fucking it up.
I can't believe you even got your citizenship.
As far as individuals are concerned, it's also up to their integrity not to keep that which does no belong to them. Be sure to let me know where you live though. Since you don't thing taking shit that doesn't belong to you is wrong, I'd love to come over and take your shit.
Dude you are a nay saying idiot, with no common sense.
Wow, not stealing, gives you the edge.
It's up to them to do the right thing. If you can proves you overcharged with a receipt, go get your money.
Obviously a clerk at a store isn't gonna know anything after your leave and are in your car. They're already serving the next customer. If you fuck someone and know you did it... RETURN THE SHIT!!!!
=============================================================
"Most" do not say it but will do it which explains the position we are in. I think the phrase is "Lip Service" and I am not refering to the Jenna Jameson movie.
I believe you have to prove that you can hold your own and not be a burden on society. As a student, I had to prove I had enough funds so I would not take up a job that a citizen was holding. What's your point? That only people with YOUR Oh so wonderful mindset can be citizens?
So the point is we need a double standard? One for the individual and another for the corp?
Note to self. Don has an unpleasant opinion of me. Take double dose of Prozac tonight. Sorry, I'm not impressed by the Wizard of Oz.
Only if you know how to milk it for what it is worth and I will milk it. As a smaller company that doesn't have 10,000 transactions a minute, I am able to find such discrepancies and milk them to my advantage. That is why I do what I do.
You seem to want to start out by defining what the right thing is according to YOUR opinion and expect everyone to follow. Even if you are right and if we all followed you we will live in paradise, most people don't follow you in this. You know it and I know it. I take a different tack. I see what the world around me is and as they say, "When in Rome.....". Having spent time working in retail for others, it does seem that it is up to the negatively affected party to come forward to make his case. The company's attitude seems to be "If you are bothered by it, come make your claim.". The customer's attitude seems to be "Hey! I got a freebie. Good for me. Hope it happens again.". According to the "Golden Rule", the customers are being treated in the way they want and so is the company. It isn't "right" by your standards but that is how society seems to be. Is the fault with the store or the consumer if you want to talk "right and wrong"? Both. Both seem to be sending the message on how they want to be treated if you look at the 'Golden Rule".
A larger store can only tell you something is not adding up while a smaller store can do some forensic accounting and find out where the problem might be. Of course, if they double scan something, it is hard to find out. OTOH, if they make wrong change, it is much easier. Best Buy will fire you if your till is $5 or more under. I have been in the right place at the right time and know how the managers operate. If it is in their favor, they somehow make the numbers come up right. If it is not in their favor, they suck it in and absorb the losses
Nov 30, 2008 - 2:10 pm
"Most" do not think the way you do or the world would be totally in the shitter. There is still enough people with integrity, unlike you, that keep the shitheads like you from totally fucking it up.
I can't believe you even got your citizenship.
As far as individuals are concerned, it's also up to their integrity not to keep that which does no belong to them. Be sure to let me know where you live though. Since you don't thing taking shit that doesn't belong to you is wrong, I'd love to come over and take your shit.
Dude you are a nay saying idiot, with no common sense.
Wow, not stealing, gives you the edge.
It's up to them to do the right thing. If you can proves you overcharged with a receipt, go get your money.
Obviously a clerk at a store isn't gonna know anything after your leave and are in your car. They're already serving the next customer. If you fuck someone and know you did it... RETURN THE SHIT!!!!
=============================================================
"Most" do not say it but will do it which explains the position we are in. I think the phrase is "Lip Service" and I am not refering to the Jenna Jameson movie.
I believe you have to prove that you can hold your own and not be a burden on society. As a student, I had to prove I had enough funds so I would not take up a job that a citizen was holding. What's your point? That only people with YOUR Oh so wonderful mindset can be citizens?
So the point is we need a double standard? One for the individual and another for the corp?
Note to self. Don has an unpleasant opinion of me. Take double dose of Prozac tonight. Sorry, I'm not impressed by the Wizard of Oz.
Only if you know how to milk it for what it is worth and I will milk it. As a smaller company that doesn't have 10,000 transactions a minute, I am able to find such discrepancies and milk them to my advantage. That is why I do what I do.
You seem to want to start out by defining what the right thing is according to YOUR opinion and expect everyone to follow. Even if you are right and if we all followed you we will live in paradise, most people don't follow you in this. You know it and I know it. I take a different tack. I see what the world around me is and as they say, "When in Rome.....". Having spent time working in retail for others, it does seem that it is up to the negatively affected party to come forward to make his case. The company's attitude seems to be "If you are bothered by it, come make your claim.". The customer's attitude seems to be "Hey! I got a freebie. Good for me. Hope it happens again.". According to the "Golden Rule", the customers are being treated in the way they want and so is the company. It isn't "right" by your standards but that is how society seems to be. Is the fault with the store or the consumer if you want to talk "right and wrong"? Both. Both seem to be sending the message on how they want to be treated if you look at the 'Golden Rule".
A larger store can only tell you something is not adding up while a smaller store can do some forensic accounting and find out where the problem might be. Of course, if they double scan something, it is hard to find out. OTOH, if they make wrong change, it is much easier. Best Buy will fire you if your till is $5 or more under. I have been in the right place at the right time and know how the managers operate. If it is in their favor, they somehow make the numbers come up right. If it is not in their favor, they suck it in and absorb the losses
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Nov 30, 2008 - 10:42 pm
Wrong is what the society you live in deems as wrong. Theft in most societies is wrong, to include our. Abortion is still in the air as many, like myself, don't put a quality on life until a frontal lobe is developed. So, until abortion is consider by our society as murder, it's not the same thing. A man taking another mans life to save his life or the life of a third party is also deemed a justified homicide in our culture. So, again... If you take shit that doesn't belong to you, you are wrong. PERIOD!
===============================================================
In an absolute sense, you are right. Society seems to frown on this as theft, wrong, etc, etc. However, what does your observation tell you? Mine says that while most people say it is wrong and swear they will not do it I see to observe that what they say is quite often different from what they do. Yes, they say much and it does sound hunky dory. Problem is they believe in few of the things they say and more importantly do even fewer of the "right thing" even as defined by them.
Nov 30, 2008 - 10:42 pm
Wrong is what the society you live in deems as wrong. Theft in most societies is wrong, to include our. Abortion is still in the air as many, like myself, don't put a quality on life until a frontal lobe is developed. So, until abortion is consider by our society as murder, it's not the same thing. A man taking another mans life to save his life or the life of a third party is also deemed a justified homicide in our culture. So, again... If you take shit that doesn't belong to you, you are wrong. PERIOD!
===============================================================
In an absolute sense, you are right. Society seems to frown on this as theft, wrong, etc, etc. However, what does your observation tell you? Mine says that while most people say it is wrong and swear they will not do it I see to observe that what they say is quite often different from what they do. Yes, they say much and it does sound hunky dory. Problem is they believe in few of the things they say and more importantly do even fewer of the "right thing" even as defined by them.
"In an absolute sense, you are right. Society seems to frown on this as theft, wrong, etc, etc. "
<hr>
Uh yeah and it's against the law. If I have proof that you took money from me. You are required to return it. Knowingly taking someone's money is theft. It's not just frowned upon. IT'S ILLEGAL! So yes, you are wrong. GET OVER IT! Talk until you are blue in the face, you are absolutely wrong. PERIOD!
-D-
<hr>
Uh yeah and it's against the law. If I have proof that you took money from me. You are required to return it. Knowingly taking someone's money is theft. It's not just frowned upon. IT'S ILLEGAL! So yes, you are wrong. GET OVER IT! Talk until you are blue in the face, you are absolutely wrong. PERIOD!
-D-
Akim.... Keep in mind you are debating this issue with someone who doesn't believe in organized religion, only what the law says. It seems to have slipped his memory that the majority of the laws on today's books stem from one religious belief or another predominately Christian. The majority of what is right and what is wrong are indoctrinated into people from their first breath. How they are raised determines what is right and what is wrong in their minds. Proof of that exists right here in this country and right here on this website, otherwise we wouldn't have this forum topic because everyone would have voted the same way. Believing that either sharing the wealth was the right way or believing it was the wrong way. Apparently it is TR's way or the wrong way.
TR ..time to get off your high horse, you have broken the law as well, maybe not the same laws you are arguing about, but laws none the less. That in itself makes you a hypocrite and have no room to criticize anyone else for their decisions.
I have saved you the trouble of asking for proof of my last accusation.
Besides the petty little traffic violations most people commit everyday here's one that applies in most states that gets broken by all on this site that live in those states.
Utah law states
76-7-103. Adultery. (1) A married person commits adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse.
(2) Adultery is a Class B misdemeanor
TR ..time to get off your high horse, you have broken the law as well, maybe not the same laws you are arguing about, but laws none the less. That in itself makes you a hypocrite and have no room to criticize anyone else for their decisions.
I have saved you the trouble of asking for proof of my last accusation.
Besides the petty little traffic violations most people commit everyday here's one that applies in most states that gets broken by all on this site that live in those states.
Utah law states
76-7-103. Adultery. (1) A married person commits adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse.
(2) Adultery is a Class B misdemeanor
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Dec 1, 2008 - 3:06 pm
"If I have proof that you took money from me. You are required to return it. Knowingly taking someone's money is theft. It's not just frowned upon. IT'S ILLEGAL! So yes, you are wrong. GET OVER IT! Talk until you are blue in the face, you are absolutely wrong. PERIOD!
===============================================================
I don't think that part is in dispute, is it? If I am undercharged and the store comes to me with proof, I am required to return it or pay the difference and if I am overcharged and prove it, I am due a refund. If either party disputes that, court is an option. IF you want to talk legal, the store presents you with the bill and either you pay or they can sue you in court and vice versa.
My point is not to dispute legality. Illegal and wrong are somewhat different. My point is that people can tell you this is wrong and what the right thing to do is with no problem. HOWEVER, it does seem that when people are faced with the issue in real life, right and wrong become a couple of 5 lettered words. As I mentioned before. Look at the RC church. Was it right to do the Catholic Shuffle for the thermophilic priests? They knew it was wrong yet the head of the organization felt it was the way to go. So knowing it is wrong and doing the right thing are very different.
Dec 1, 2008 - 3:06 pm
"If I have proof that you took money from me. You are required to return it. Knowingly taking someone's money is theft. It's not just frowned upon. IT'S ILLEGAL! So yes, you are wrong. GET OVER IT! Talk until you are blue in the face, you are absolutely wrong. PERIOD!
===============================================================
I don't think that part is in dispute, is it? If I am undercharged and the store comes to me with proof, I am required to return it or pay the difference and if I am overcharged and prove it, I am due a refund. If either party disputes that, court is an option. IF you want to talk legal, the store presents you with the bill and either you pay or they can sue you in court and vice versa.
My point is not to dispute legality. Illegal and wrong are somewhat different. My point is that people can tell you this is wrong and what the right thing to do is with no problem. HOWEVER, it does seem that when people are faced with the issue in real life, right and wrong become a couple of 5 lettered words. As I mentioned before. Look at the RC church. Was it right to do the Catholic Shuffle for the thermophilic priests? They knew it was wrong yet the head of the organization felt it was the way to go. So knowing it is wrong and doing the right thing are very different.
"TR ..time to get off your high horse, you have broken the law as well, maybe not the same laws you are arguing about, but laws none the less. That in itself makes you a hypocrite and have no room to criticize anyone else for their decisions.
I have saved you the trouble of asking for proof of my last accusation.
Besides the petty little traffic violations most people commit everyday here's one that applies in most states that gets broken by all on this site that live in those states."
<hr>
I AM NOT SAYING I DON'T BREAK LAWS!!! THE QUESTION IS ABOUT WHETHER IT'S ETHICAL TO KEEP MONEY THAT'S NOT YOURS!
<font size="5">IT'S NOT!!!</font>
I'm not on a "high horse". Where the fuck did I say I don't break the law. I speed everywhere I go. Let me ask you this though... Who would you rather hang out with... A thief or a swinger? A thief or a speeder? HAHA! A jaywalker or a child molester? I don't think I need to continue. Of course everyone breaks laws and have done dishonest things in their lives like lying to their parents etc.... However, what is more widely tolerable?
I don't really care if you keep the money or item. That's on you. That wasn't the fucking question though. We were asked if it was ethical. According to the standard and laws of our society... The fuckin answer is NO!
Oh and because of the brilliant new findings by the supreme court in lawsuits such as Lawerence v. Texas, laws like sodomy and adultry are not being prosecuted. They aren't even legit laws according to our constitution.. They're Christians shitting on our secular government. While they remain on the book in many states, that do not regard the 1st Amendment, they are viewed like J-walking. No one gives a shit, especially me. I don't respect laws that violate the 1st Amendment anyway. Laws that respect the Christian cult, mean nothing to me unless they violate human rights, civil rights or common ethics like theft, fraud, etc. Morals have no place in law.... Why, because it's the law!!! See the constitution. I don't respect unconstitutional law. Thanks though. You should know about those blue laws in the SOUF!!! HAHA!! I say fuck em too!
AKLIM,
Agreed, you are able to dispute civilly anything you don't agree with. However, if the store has proof you didn't pay and you have nothing to prove otherwise, by law you will be forced to pay or return the item. Again, it is illegal to keep property or money that doesn't belong to you. The reason why it's treated civilly, because these matters aren't criminal. The reason is because there is no criminal intent involved. If you have a legitimate complaint that can be proven, the court will side with you and the store will be forced to pay <b>BY LAW!</b>
Now, If a clerk kept your information and used it to purposefully charge your card and pocket the overage etc. The it is now a matter of criminal intent and prosecution would be directed at the clerk.
-D-
I have saved you the trouble of asking for proof of my last accusation.
Besides the petty little traffic violations most people commit everyday here's one that applies in most states that gets broken by all on this site that live in those states."
<hr>
I AM NOT SAYING I DON'T BREAK LAWS!!! THE QUESTION IS ABOUT WHETHER IT'S ETHICAL TO KEEP MONEY THAT'S NOT YOURS!
<font size="5">IT'S NOT!!!</font>
I'm not on a "high horse". Where the fuck did I say I don't break the law. I speed everywhere I go. Let me ask you this though... Who would you rather hang out with... A thief or a swinger? A thief or a speeder? HAHA! A jaywalker or a child molester? I don't think I need to continue. Of course everyone breaks laws and have done dishonest things in their lives like lying to their parents etc.... However, what is more widely tolerable?
I don't really care if you keep the money or item. That's on you. That wasn't the fucking question though. We were asked if it was ethical. According to the standard and laws of our society... The fuckin answer is NO!
Oh and because of the brilliant new findings by the supreme court in lawsuits such as Lawerence v. Texas, laws like sodomy and adultry are not being prosecuted. They aren't even legit laws according to our constitution.. They're Christians shitting on our secular government. While they remain on the book in many states, that do not regard the 1st Amendment, they are viewed like J-walking. No one gives a shit, especially me. I don't respect laws that violate the 1st Amendment anyway. Laws that respect the Christian cult, mean nothing to me unless they violate human rights, civil rights or common ethics like theft, fraud, etc. Morals have no place in law.... Why, because it's the law!!! See the constitution. I don't respect unconstitutional law. Thanks though. You should know about those blue laws in the SOUF!!! HAHA!! I say fuck em too!
AKLIM,
Agreed, you are able to dispute civilly anything you don't agree with. However, if the store has proof you didn't pay and you have nothing to prove otherwise, by law you will be forced to pay or return the item. Again, it is illegal to keep property or money that doesn't belong to you. The reason why it's treated civilly, because these matters aren't criminal. The reason is because there is no criminal intent involved. If you have a legitimate complaint that can be proven, the court will side with you and the store will be forced to pay <b>BY LAW!</b>
Now, If a clerk kept your information and used it to purposefully charge your card and pocket the overage etc. The it is now a matter of criminal intent and prosecution would be directed at the clerk.
-D-
Posted By: TOPFREEINGA Reply posted on:
Dec 1, 2008 - 5:42 pm
Akim.... Keep in mind you are debating this issue with someone who doesn't believe in organized religion, only what the law says. It seems to have slipped his memory that the majority of the laws on today's books stem from one religious belief or another predominately Christian. The majority of what is right and what is wrong are indoctrinated into people from their first breath. How they are raised determines what is right and what is wrong in their minds. Proof of that exists right here in this country and right here on this website, otherwise we wouldn't have this forum topic because everyone would have voted the same way. Believing that either sharing the wealth was the right way or believing it was the wrong way. Apparently it is TR's way or the wrong way.
===============================================================
It is my opinion that religion is there to take up the legal slack. Because of the imperfection of the legal system, it cannot apprehend and punish all the wrong doers. What does this mean? Well, it means that if you escape man's justice, you are home free. HOLD THE PHONE. Now we have religion that promises you that even if you escape man's justice, there is divine retribution. DR doesn't care about the "Double Jeopardy" rules. This means you will be punished no less than one time for your misdeed. Maybe even twice. So behave, OR ELSE.
Dec 1, 2008 - 5:42 pm
Akim.... Keep in mind you are debating this issue with someone who doesn't believe in organized religion, only what the law says. It seems to have slipped his memory that the majority of the laws on today's books stem from one religious belief or another predominately Christian. The majority of what is right and what is wrong are indoctrinated into people from their first breath. How they are raised determines what is right and what is wrong in their minds. Proof of that exists right here in this country and right here on this website, otherwise we wouldn't have this forum topic because everyone would have voted the same way. Believing that either sharing the wealth was the right way or believing it was the wrong way. Apparently it is TR's way or the wrong way.
===============================================================
It is my opinion that religion is there to take up the legal slack. Because of the imperfection of the legal system, it cannot apprehend and punish all the wrong doers. What does this mean? Well, it means that if you escape man's justice, you are home free. HOLD THE PHONE. Now we have religion that promises you that even if you escape man's justice, there is divine retribution. DR doesn't care about the "Double Jeopardy" rules. This means you will be punished no less than one time for your misdeed. Maybe even twice. So behave, OR ELSE.
TOPFREEINGA,
It doesn't matter what the laws were based on. Many laws that are not morality based, but human rights come without religion. Christianity is a new religion compared to the religions it was bastardized from. Christianity is just pagan sun worship with a new face. There is tons of proof there. Anyway, so it doesn't matter what the founders themselves believed. It matters what they wrote and ratified into our constitution. SEE THE FIRST AMENDMENT! Our government is secular.
A law that justified with the words "god" or "my faith" or the like are all unconstitutional. Adultry, fornication, prostitution, are all religious based laws. There are plenty of people that don't view them as wrong. They are choices that are made by adults regarding their own lives. The only people that view it as wrong are religious sheep. Theft, Murder and crimes against the non-consenting are human rights. They are ethical. They don't need an invisible man in the sky, to tell you they are wrong and counter-productive to society.
-D-
It doesn't matter what the laws were based on. Many laws that are not morality based, but human rights come without religion. Christianity is a new religion compared to the religions it was bastardized from. Christianity is just pagan sun worship with a new face. There is tons of proof there. Anyway, so it doesn't matter what the founders themselves believed. It matters what they wrote and ratified into our constitution. SEE THE FIRST AMENDMENT! Our government is secular.
A law that justified with the words "god" or "my faith" or the like are all unconstitutional. Adultry, fornication, prostitution, are all religious based laws. There are plenty of people that don't view them as wrong. They are choices that are made by adults regarding their own lives. The only people that view it as wrong are religious sheep. Theft, Murder and crimes against the non-consenting are human rights. They are ethical. They don't need an invisible man in the sky, to tell you they are wrong and counter-productive to society.
-D-
A law that justified with the words "god" or "my faith" or the like are all unconstitutional. Adultry, fornication, prostitution, are all religious based laws. There are plenty of people that don't view them as wrong. They are choices that are made by adults regarding their own lives. The only people that view it as wrong are religious sheep. Theft, Murder and crimes against the non-consenting are human rights. They are ethical. They don't need an invisible man in the sky, to tell you they are wrong and counter-productive to society.
So in your mind if the law is based on a religion, (which most morals and ethics are also founded in) then you don't have to follow it because you don't agree with it or because others also view it as a law that shouldn't be? A LAW IS A LAW. WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT OR FIND IT TO BE UNJUST IS IRRELEVANT. The only relevance is whether or not that law violates the constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as you wish it to be. Thus you, like everyone else on this site and the massive majority of the people in this country have broken and will continue to break the law. (Whether it be adultry, theft or simply speeding.)Just because someone choose to break a law you agree with or you deem as moral doesn't make them any worse than you. If you are a law breaker then you are a hypocrite for telling others that their moral compass is fucked up if they also choose to break the law. Either you are a law breaker or you are not, there is no in between and there is no gray area. (to avoid confusion I readily admit to being in the massive majority).
So in your mind if the law is based on a religion, (which most morals and ethics are also founded in) then you don't have to follow it because you don't agree with it or because others also view it as a law that shouldn't be? A LAW IS A LAW. WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT OR FIND IT TO BE UNJUST IS IRRELEVANT. The only relevance is whether or not that law violates the constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as you wish it to be. Thus you, like everyone else on this site and the massive majority of the people in this country have broken and will continue to break the law. (Whether it be adultry, theft or simply speeding.)Just because someone choose to break a law you agree with or you deem as moral doesn't make them any worse than you. If you are a law breaker then you are a hypocrite for telling others that their moral compass is fucked up if they also choose to break the law. Either you are a law breaker or you are not, there is no in between and there is no gray area. (to avoid confusion I readily admit to being in the massive majority).
"So in your mind if the law is based on a religion, (which most morals and ethics are also founded in) then you don't have to follow it because you don't agree with it or because others also view it as a law that shouldn't be? A LAW IS A LAW. WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH IT OR FIND IT TO BE UNJUST IS IRRELEVANT."
<hr>
<b>Wrong</b> a law that violates the constitution is not a law. Again you can have ethics without an invisible man in the sky. When a a group of people force others to abide by laws that violate the very constitution of a nation... It's called <b>CORRUPTION!</b> I don't have to do shit!!! See Lawerence vs. TX. It's called fighting the unconstitutional law. Oh and I could give a fuck about morals. Laws regarding sodomy, adulty, fornication, prostitution, etc. are all bullshit laws that are unconstitutional. They are just corruption of the government by the christian cult. If someone breaks those laws, I pay no attention and could give a fuck less. Ethical/human/civil rights laws have nothing to do with a an fictional invisible man in the sky telling you who to fuck. While any religion may enforce ethics be endoctrinating it into their dogma, to their followers, I don't personally need the "all powerful Oz (human behind the curtain) to tell me that killing, stealing and the like are counter-productive to a civilized society. I don't need a middle man. I am a free thinker. We have Amendments (1st and 14th) in the Constitution that protect us from the bullshit that christian zealots try and do to our secular government. From these idiot christian laws mentioned, to the stupid blue laws in the south to the shit that senator buttars is trying to do by legislating a bill encouraging retailer to use the word christmas (a fuckin celebration based on the pagan holiday YULE). I am sorry but I only have one thing to say when you stick that shit in my law and in my face... You are you god can fuck off. Thank you... Have a nice day.
If Georgia was suddenly overran with mulsim immigrants and the got the majority to force their dogma down your throat, you'd be singing a whole new tune when your wife was force to wear a fuckin burka because to them a females face in public is considered indecency. Take your religion back to your own life and practice it yourself. keep it out of my fuckin face.
-D-
P.S. Let's see how much the Christians have the right to enforce dogma, when the Supreme Court of California gets a hold of Prop 8.
<hr>
<b>Wrong</b> a law that violates the constitution is not a law. Again you can have ethics without an invisible man in the sky. When a a group of people force others to abide by laws that violate the very constitution of a nation... It's called <b>CORRUPTION!</b> I don't have to do shit!!! See Lawerence vs. TX. It's called fighting the unconstitutional law. Oh and I could give a fuck about morals. Laws regarding sodomy, adulty, fornication, prostitution, etc. are all bullshit laws that are unconstitutional. They are just corruption of the government by the christian cult. If someone breaks those laws, I pay no attention and could give a fuck less. Ethical/human/civil rights laws have nothing to do with a an fictional invisible man in the sky telling you who to fuck. While any religion may enforce ethics be endoctrinating it into their dogma, to their followers, I don't personally need the "all powerful Oz (human behind the curtain) to tell me that killing, stealing and the like are counter-productive to a civilized society. I don't need a middle man. I am a free thinker. We have Amendments (1st and 14th) in the Constitution that protect us from the bullshit that christian zealots try and do to our secular government. From these idiot christian laws mentioned, to the stupid blue laws in the south to the shit that senator buttars is trying to do by legislating a bill encouraging retailer to use the word christmas (a fuckin celebration based on the pagan holiday YULE). I am sorry but I only have one thing to say when you stick that shit in my law and in my face... You are you god can fuck off. Thank you... Have a nice day.
If Georgia was suddenly overran with mulsim immigrants and the got the majority to force their dogma down your throat, you'd be singing a whole new tune when your wife was force to wear a fuckin burka because to them a females face in public is considered indecency. Take your religion back to your own life and practice it yourself. keep it out of my fuckin face.
-D-
P.S. Let's see how much the Christians have the right to enforce dogma, when the Supreme Court of California gets a hold of Prop 8.
" When a a group of people force others to abide by laws that violate the very constitution of a nation... It's called CORRUPTION! I don't have to do shit!!! See Lawerence vs. TX. It's called fighting the unconstitutional law. "
I am not disagreeing with you on the unconstitutionality and liberty infringement of some laws. The point of the argument was that if you can pick and choose which laws to violate then so can others. Whether or not the law is unconstitutional or not has no bearing on whether or not you violated it. The proper action is not to violate the law but to fight the system and have the law changed.
A prime example is the public indecency laws in the state of Texas. A few years ago a woman was cited for public indecency for mowing her yard with out a shirt on. A good lawyer and a trial later she was acquitted of the charges because the law defined indecency as the showing of "reproductive organs" which the breasts are not. Thus the courts found her not guilty. The very next week she was again arrested for mowing her yard without a shirt on and charged with disturbing the peace. The officers claimed that her toplessness was causing a distraction to passing motorists and was offensive to others. She was then found guilty. A buillshit way to go about it but it was effective and unfortunately it was also legal as it was upheld by the State supreme court. (I have not found anything about whether or not it went to the federal level).
"Ethical/human/civil rights laws have nothing to do with a an fictional invisible man in the sky telling you who to fuck. While any religion may enforce ethics be endoctrinating it into their dogma, to their followers, I don't personally need the "all powerful Oz (human behind the curtain) to tell me that killing, stealing and the like are counter-productive to a civilized society. "
Once again not in disagreement with you that the murder stealing etc. laws. However we disagree on the basis of those laws. Every one of them is based on religious beliefs. We can go around and around about this for ever, You are not a fan of organized religion, nor am I however the fact still remains that the majority of the "laws of ethics" found in this country are religious based. Regardless of where they come from what should be a determining factor is their infringement on the rights of the people as a whole. Personally I feel that as long as you are not violating the individual rights of others then what you are doing should be legal. However laws are not soley based on that theory. Included over the years is the concept of "possiblity" of infringement on others.
I am not disagreeing with you on the unconstitutionality and liberty infringement of some laws. The point of the argument was that if you can pick and choose which laws to violate then so can others. Whether or not the law is unconstitutional or not has no bearing on whether or not you violated it. The proper action is not to violate the law but to fight the system and have the law changed.
A prime example is the public indecency laws in the state of Texas. A few years ago a woman was cited for public indecency for mowing her yard with out a shirt on. A good lawyer and a trial later she was acquitted of the charges because the law defined indecency as the showing of "reproductive organs" which the breasts are not. Thus the courts found her not guilty. The very next week she was again arrested for mowing her yard without a shirt on and charged with disturbing the peace. The officers claimed that her toplessness was causing a distraction to passing motorists and was offensive to others. She was then found guilty. A buillshit way to go about it but it was effective and unfortunately it was also legal as it was upheld by the State supreme court. (I have not found anything about whether or not it went to the federal level).
"Ethical/human/civil rights laws have nothing to do with a an fictional invisible man in the sky telling you who to fuck. While any religion may enforce ethics be endoctrinating it into their dogma, to their followers, I don't personally need the "all powerful Oz (human behind the curtain) to tell me that killing, stealing and the like are counter-productive to a civilized society. "
Once again not in disagreement with you that the murder stealing etc. laws. However we disagree on the basis of those laws. Every one of them is based on religious beliefs. We can go around and around about this for ever, You are not a fan of organized religion, nor am I however the fact still remains that the majority of the "laws of ethics" found in this country are religious based. Regardless of where they come from what should be a determining factor is their infringement on the rights of the people as a whole. Personally I feel that as long as you are not violating the individual rights of others then what you are doing should be legal. However laws are not soley based on that theory. Included over the years is the concept of "possiblity" of infringement on others.
"The point of the argument was that if you can pick and choose which laws to violate then so can others."
<hr>
and people do every day. HAHA! People are murdered everyday. People speed in their car everyday. The do it because they don't respect the law. Just like you don't respect the adultry/fornication laws of GA.
http://law.justia.com/georgia/codes/16/16-6-18.html
http://law.justia.com/georgia/codes/16/16-6-19.html
It all boils down to perception. I feel, as you do, that the acts of of adultry and fornication are of a private matter and should only be handled civilly when someone defaults on a contract (marriage). All parties should be legally consentual. The government has no right to enforce morals, so with that given, any law that violates the guideline, should not be respected. If the violator is caught and you are brought before a judge, it's then up to the prosecutor to prove that I violated the law. It is then my <b>duty</b> to show that any laws, that the prosecutor cites are unconstitutional. If the court disagrees, I am then convicted and I then appeal to a higher court if I feel that the local court is prejudice. See Lawerence v. TX.
The intent of the founding fathers were pretty clear. Live and let live. If I fuck my wife in the ass, how does that affect you? If I get a prostitute, how does that affect you. If I fuck my neighbors wife and he watches, how does that affect you? If I marry a dude, How does that affect you? Now... Murder, Rape, Racism, Theft, Unfair treatment of Workers... <b>ALL AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE</b>
"Once again not in disagreement with you that the murder stealing etc. laws. However we disagree on the basis of those laws. Every one of them is based on religious beliefs. "
Bullshit!!! Prove it. Prove that it was based in religion. You have no proof of your claim. Just because many religions adopt common sense human rights laws, doesn't mean religion invented them. Consequence is what dictates our actions. It's just common sense. How can we have a civilized society if I kill you? It has <u>nothing</u> to do with God. It has to do with logic. We can go round and round all day. Ancient secular societies upheld these laws long before Judeo-Christian religions (religions based on pagan sun worship) were invented.
It also doesn't matter anyway. We still live in secular nation. Laws that respect and establishment of religion are not allowed. Murder, Rape, Theft etc. are laws that exist in secular governments as well, but prostitution, fornication, adultry are all religious based dogma. I do not respect them. If I am ever convicted of any of them, I will fight it tooth and nail and If I lose, I will be proud of my record. HAHA! So moral laws get no respect from me. Times are changing in my favor anyway. People are fighting these unconstitutional laws and winning. Again, see Lawerence v. Texas. We will soon see more and more gay rights as well. Why... BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT TO MARRY!!
-D-
<hr>
and people do every day. HAHA! People are murdered everyday. People speed in their car everyday. The do it because they don't respect the law. Just like you don't respect the adultry/fornication laws of GA.
http://law.justia.com/georgia/codes/16/16-6-18.html
http://law.justia.com/georgia/codes/16/16-6-19.html
It all boils down to perception. I feel, as you do, that the acts of of adultry and fornication are of a private matter and should only be handled civilly when someone defaults on a contract (marriage). All parties should be legally consentual. The government has no right to enforce morals, so with that given, any law that violates the guideline, should not be respected. If the violator is caught and you are brought before a judge, it's then up to the prosecutor to prove that I violated the law. It is then my <b>duty</b> to show that any laws, that the prosecutor cites are unconstitutional. If the court disagrees, I am then convicted and I then appeal to a higher court if I feel that the local court is prejudice. See Lawerence v. TX.
The intent of the founding fathers were pretty clear. Live and let live. If I fuck my wife in the ass, how does that affect you? If I get a prostitute, how does that affect you. If I fuck my neighbors wife and he watches, how does that affect you? If I marry a dude, How does that affect you? Now... Murder, Rape, Racism, Theft, Unfair treatment of Workers... <b>ALL AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE</b>"Once again not in disagreement with you that the murder stealing etc. laws. However we disagree on the basis of those laws. Every one of them is based on religious beliefs. "
Bullshit!!! Prove it. Prove that it was based in religion. You have no proof of your claim. Just because many religions adopt common sense human rights laws, doesn't mean religion invented them. Consequence is what dictates our actions. It's just common sense. How can we have a civilized society if I kill you? It has <u>nothing</u> to do with God. It has to do with logic. We can go round and round all day. Ancient secular societies upheld these laws long before Judeo-Christian religions (religions based on pagan sun worship) were invented.
It also doesn't matter anyway. We still live in secular nation. Laws that respect and establishment of religion are not allowed. Murder, Rape, Theft etc. are laws that exist in secular governments as well, but prostitution, fornication, adultry are all religious based dogma. I do not respect them. If I am ever convicted of any of them, I will fight it tooth and nail and If I lose, I will be proud of my record. HAHA! So moral laws get no respect from me. Times are changing in my favor anyway. People are fighting these unconstitutional laws and winning. Again, see Lawerence v. Texas. We will soon see more and more gay rights as well. Why... BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT TO MARRY!!
-D-
Do the ten commandments figure in this debate anywhere? Go back far enough in time and it was survival of the fittest. There was no court. No laws. It was simply kill or be killed.
Yes, but humans were civilized beyond that point before the 10 commandments were <b>allegedly</b> given to humans by the Judaeo-Christian god. You are also taking the history of "ten commandments" from a book that has no other proof of validity than itself. In fact, much much more evidence points to the Christian religion being based on pagan sun worship (the zodiac).
I think evolution of the brain and discoveries that helped survival when people ban together made civil interaction necessary. Humans are naturally a pack animal. Like lions, we can survive on our own, but it is much more difficult. So, it makes more sense to collaborate. In order for the collaboration to occur in the most efficient way possible, we can't be killing, raping or stealing from eachother. After all, we all want our share in the group. We all wish to avoid harm and most of all death. Again, it's common sense and we don't need a god to tell us it's wrong. We have a large brain that allows us to conclude that working together is the most logical way to survive. Again, common sense.
-D-
I think evolution of the brain and discoveries that helped survival when people ban together made civil interaction necessary. Humans are naturally a pack animal. Like lions, we can survive on our own, but it is much more difficult. So, it makes more sense to collaborate. In order for the collaboration to occur in the most efficient way possible, we can't be killing, raping or stealing from eachother. After all, we all want our share in the group. We all wish to avoid harm and most of all death. Again, it's common sense and we don't need a god to tell us it's wrong. We have a large brain that allows us to conclude that working together is the most logical way to survive. Again, common sense.
-D-
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Dec 6, 2008 - 12:18 pm
Yes, but humans were civilized beyond that point before the 10 commandments were allegedly given to humans by the Judaeo-Christian god. You are also taking the history of "ten commandments" from a book that has no other proof of validity than itself. In fact, much much more evidence points to the Christian religion being based on pagan sun worship (the zodiac).
Again, it's common sense and we don't need a god to tell us it's wrong.
===============================================================
I think you can say that is common in all religious texts be they the Torah, the JC Bible, the Koran, etc, etc.
I don't think it is so much to tell us that this or that is wrong. My take on it is that man is imperfect. Therefore, his constructs will be imperfect whether it is a car, house, or the law. Today, we have all kinds of ways to catch criminals that we didn't have 100 years ago. We are more efficient but not perfect. What does this mean? Well, we may net 90 out of 100 criminals but some will go free. So, all I have to do is commit a crime that will outsmart my fellow man or be more lucky to slip thru the cracks and I am free. I die and it is all over. But wait!! We have a deity now. This deity is perfect and is all knowing and all seeing and will punish you in the next life. IOW, there is no escape. You will be punished once if not twice. Remember, God has NO double jeopardy clause. My take on it is that religion of any sort is meant to deter people from committing crimes. It is meant to scare you into compliance. Remember, you are being watched and you will get punished, one way or the other. Religion does not tell you what is wrong and right only. There is the threat of divine punishment to keep you herded in the path it wants you to be on.
Dec 6, 2008 - 12:18 pm
Yes, but humans were civilized beyond that point before the 10 commandments were allegedly given to humans by the Judaeo-Christian god. You are also taking the history of "ten commandments" from a book that has no other proof of validity than itself. In fact, much much more evidence points to the Christian religion being based on pagan sun worship (the zodiac).
Again, it's common sense and we don't need a god to tell us it's wrong.
===============================================================
I think you can say that is common in all religious texts be they the Torah, the JC Bible, the Koran, etc, etc.
I don't think it is so much to tell us that this or that is wrong. My take on it is that man is imperfect. Therefore, his constructs will be imperfect whether it is a car, house, or the law. Today, we have all kinds of ways to catch criminals that we didn't have 100 years ago. We are more efficient but not perfect. What does this mean? Well, we may net 90 out of 100 criminals but some will go free. So, all I have to do is commit a crime that will outsmart my fellow man or be more lucky to slip thru the cracks and I am free. I die and it is all over. But wait!! We have a deity now. This deity is perfect and is all knowing and all seeing and will punish you in the next life. IOW, there is no escape. You will be punished once if not twice. Remember, God has NO double jeopardy clause. My take on it is that religion of any sort is meant to deter people from committing crimes. It is meant to scare you into compliance. Remember, you are being watched and you will get punished, one way or the other. Religion does not tell you what is wrong and right only. There is the threat of divine punishment to keep you herded in the path it wants you to be on.
I totally agree that it's an archaic means to gain compliance. What's beautiful about this secular country is that I can tell your god to shove it up his/her/it/their ass. FUCK EM!
-D-
-D-