| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> My guess is they're mad at him for "getting away with it". Something like:
> "I couldn't bring myself to do that as it's against my moral sense, and I,
> as a result, think that nobody should be ABLE to get away with it. So I'm
> mad at him for successfully breaking my inferred rule on the system."
Not necessarily true at all, and it would be somewhat narrow and
narcissistic of a person to decry only that which he could not bring himself
to get away with. The reason I abhor murder has nothing to do with the
likelihood that I'd get caught if I tried it; just so in this case. I'm
annoyed (to the extent that I am, which isn't too much anyway) because
someone felt himself entitled to screw with the system, not because I
"coun't bring myself to do that." I'm hardly a paragon of virtue (no,
really!), so I expect that others here could similarly dislike the trickery
on its own terms.
> Supposedly, it would reflect the same personality type on Matt had he not
> gotten away with it, yes? Let's suppose the Wal*Mart manager had said "I
> happen to know for a fact that these came from Target and so you can't
> return them here. Go back to Target." Is Matt any more/less moral? Don't
> think so. If people were truly mad at him for his "immoral" attitude/action,
> they *SHOULD* be equally mad, yes? I'd think so. But as you so rightly
> pointed out, I highly doubt people would be as mad if he hadn't gotten away
> with it.
Perhaps, but only because, "if he hadn't gotten away with it," the manager's
rebuff would have gone toward Matt's just desserts. If Matt successfully
pulls the wool over the Wal*Mart's eyes, then nothing has happened to offset
Matt's wrong (if such it could be called, hypothetically). No comeuppance,
so to speak.
We could even say that, in successfully "returning" the merchandise and
making the subsequent purchase, Matt committed two so-called wrongs: first,
he was wrong to return it; second, he was wrong to take advantage of it.
I'm not actually all that uptight about it, but I'm intrigued by the thought
experiment...
Dave!
FUT: OT.Debate, since we've sort of left the marketplace.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Poor Target....
|
| (...) Actually, I misspoke, but I'm not sure that's entirely your grievance with my post anyway. Rephrase above to "My guess is they're *also* mad at him..." Not to imply that people aren't mad for other reasons, which I think they are. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Poor Target....
|
| (...) Pesonally, I don't appreciate the braggadocio aspect of the original post. However, heres a counter example (hypothetical of course)... Suppose someone takes the Target ad into a WalMart and asks "see this ad, will you match Target's price ?" (...) (22 years ago, 24-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
| (...) Agree 100% :) My guess is they're mad at him for "getting away with it". Something like: "I couldn't bring myself to do that as it's against my moral sense, and I, as a result, think that nobody should be ABLE to get away with it. So I'm mad (...) (22 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.market.theory)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
