Subject:
|
Re: Poor Target....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 23 May 2002 20:53:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
439 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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,
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.
> 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.
Exactly. And I'm not so sure it's necessarily anger towards Matt
specifically, but towards the system. However, because he's the obvious
target in this case, that anger gets directed at him.
> 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 so sure I see the difference you're getting at between these two--
do you mean he was wrong to:
1) conceive of the notion
2) enact it?
(I'd disagree with that on the basis that it's not wrong to conceive of the
notion) Or perhaps:
1) attempt to get away with it
2) actually do so?
(I'd disagree on the basis that the actual getting away with it in no way
*further* reflects on Matt's character)
I guess I'm not sure of the distinction between the 'returning it' and the
'taking advantage of it' that you mention, since they're one-in-the-same,
AFAICT.
> I'm not actually all that uptight about it, but I'm intrigued by the thought
> experiment...
Yeah, same here :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Poor Target....
|
| (...) I agree with you--if I'm writing a novel, I can "conceive" of any number of ways to commit fraud or theft or murder, but in itself that's no wrongdoing. Though I suppose that, if I commit any of those acts, my pre-planning might incriminate (...) (23 years ago, 23-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Poor Target....
|
| (...) 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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
