Subject:
|
Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Mar 2002 20:15:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
557 times
|
| |
|
|
Ok these are all good points, and I would like to apologize to Jeremy for my
earlier "you're a thief and so is your daddy!" post. I agree that my tone
was a bit harsh, now that it’s past lunch and I’m settled in for a calmer
afternoon I will address this post with a “kinder gentler tone” :)
First comments like ” So, my Dad said, "just to spite you, I'll have my Mom
order 3 for herself!" and hung up the phone” isn’t really a physical threat
but more of an “I’ll show you that I can beat the system” kind of threat.
That’s just not the kind of thing I (this is just me now, you may do
whatever you want) would want my son bragging about.
Second, like many have said already, getting the three trains you knew you
didn’t pay for and didn’t order and keeping them just isn’t right. To me
(now this again is my personal opinion) is a form of stealing if you don’t
notify the sender of their mistake. I think it’s stealing because you know
you didn’t order them and you didn’t pay for them. I know if I had made such
a mistake I’d hope the receiving party would at least acknowledge it. I’m
sure TLC would pay to have them returned or be willing to work a deal. I’m
not a fan of keeping things that weren’t given to me on purpose, and this is
a value that I also wish to teach my son.
jt
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> >
> > > Beyond that, the idea that S@H sent an extra package does not constitute as
> > > stealing,
> >
> > As a hypothetical example, if you had ordered $1000 worth of LEGO and it
> > was delivered to me in error, would you accuse me of stealing if I kept it
> > and didn't pay for it? Or how about if I saw three Super Chiefs sitting on
> > a delivery cart and I helped myself to them? How would that be tangibly
> > different?
> >
> > > For me, tho, I would have called S@H and mentioned that they sent me these 3
> > > for free, and I would be willing to pay for them. Not only 'cause of my
> > > Christian values (it wasn't stealing but I'd still feel guilty)
> >
> > According to every formal discussion of Christian values I've ever heard
> > regarding "thou shalt not steal," the situation described would certainly be
> > stealing, as much as accepting too much change from a cashier or failing to
> > report that your gas meter only records half your usage. If you got
> > something to which you aren't entitled and/or for which you didn't (but
> > should have) paid, you've stolen it.
> >
> > Dave!
>
> Now this is a discussion :)
>
> 'Tis true, if *I* have something that I did not pay for, which should have
> been paid for, it is stealing. If I knowingly went to a store and stuck
> something in my pocket and walked out, that is stealing. If the store
> shipped something to my house, with a *blank* invoice, there's ambiguity.
>
> Mistake? maybe. Maybe (shot in a million) the store *wanted* me to have it
> for free. Sure it's splitting hairs, but for the *letter of the law*, blank
> invoice shipped to my house from a store does *not* constitute as stealing,
> could be a gift or something else.
>
> Formal discussions follow the letter of the law. In my case, the Spirit of
> the law is that if TLC shipped *me* something with a blank invoice and there
> was any question in my mind, I find I come down on the side of reimbursing,
> or even opening a dialogue with said company to figure out what happened,
> just so I don't have any questions in my mind (and alleviating any sense of
> guilt, whether justified or not)
>
> That said, others may, in their minds, have a different openion as to the
> Spirit of the law, and come down somewhere different. That's their
> perrogative and who am I to judge?
>
> Another situation in this particular case is as follows:
>
> If I walked out of a store with something in my pocket and not paying for
> it, it is shoplifting. If someone shouted "Stop! Thief!", that would be
> accurate and I would deserve that.
>
> If, however, when there's ambiguity, or mayhaps misunderstanding, as in this
> particualr case, slapping someone down and saying "you're a thief and so is
> your daddy!" really isn't helping clear up the situation or resolving it to
> the satisfaction of all parties. It just puts people on the defensive and
> causes a ruckus--no mutual ground can be found when there's ruckii.
>
> Dave
> -Cursed with seeing *most* sides of an issue, and loving conflict resolution.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
| (...) I would also hope the receiving party would at least say something about it! There was a situation in my past when a family member found 2500 dollars (CDN so like 50 bucks for you Americans ;) ) in a parkinglot somewhere. He did not put an ad (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
| Note: It is against my rules to post here but because of the recent activity, which was caused by me, I decided to break that rule to address this issue and not ignore it. However, I am not here to stay... (...) James, Thanks for the apology. My (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Free Super Chiefs
|
| (...) Now this is a discussion :) 'Tis true, if *I* have something that I did not pay for, which should have been paid for, it is stealing. If I knowingly went to a store and stuck something in my pocket and walked out, that is stealing. If the (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
64 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
|
|
|
|
