Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

How honest are you?Follow

#27 Sep 29 2014 at 5:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Elinda wrote:
Gbaji, I think we can recognize when a business is 'big' enough, that dealing with a one-time mistake of such a trivial nature is probably inefficient for both the customer and the business.


But "one time" mistakes don't actually just happen one time. They happen a percentage of time. And that percentage is going to scale with the "big store". If I have 100 times as many customers coming through my chain of stores versus your one store, I'm subject to 100 times as many "one time mistakes". Which brings us right back to the point about gross profit margins. I've got 100 times as much overhead, 100 times as many employees, 100 times as many of everything. I really do think it's a mistake to assume that the larger chain store can just absorb losses like that. It hurts them exactly as much as it hurts a smaller store because it's going to happen more often in direct proportion to the relative "size" of the stores.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Sep 29 2014 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
But, yeah, you're "disturbed" over questionable ethical foundations regarding whether or not you underpay a buck on your produce Smiley: laugh
If the grocery store required you to spend hours filling out forms to figure out how much that produce costs, you'd have a point.

If apples cost $4,000 you'd have a point. But you don't. You ignored your obligations because "Math is Hard!" and want to pretend that doesn't count. Which maybe I'd be tempted to do the same if I tried cheating the government out of four grand with the excuse "Math is Hard!". But then I wouldn't do that so I guess we'll never know.

Keep being disturbed about the questionable ethics of apple prices though Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Sep 30 2014 at 9:55 AM Rating: Good
I'd probably mention it to the cashier in the OP situation, but also probably expect a "meh, don't worry about it" in response.

If I did accidentally shoplift something because the cashier forgot to ring it up, I always run back and pay for it as soon as I realize it. I usually get appreciation and thanks for honesty.
#30 Sep 30 2014 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Gbaji, I think we can recognize when a business is 'big' enough, that dealing with a one-time mistake of such a trivial nature is probably inefficient for both the customer and the business.


But "one time" mistakes don't actually just happen one time. They happen a percentage of time. And that percentage is going to scale with the "big store". If I have 100 times as many customers coming through my chain of stores versus your one store, I'm subject to 100 times as many "one time mistakes". Which brings us right back to the point about gross profit margins. I've got 100 times as much overhead, 100 times as many employees, 100 times as many of everything. I really do think it's a mistake to assume that the larger chain store can just absorb losses like that. It hurts them exactly as much as it hurts a smaller store because it's going to happen more often in direct proportion to the relative "size" of the stores.

If one time mistakes happen frequently the problem is not a one-offer. It's systemic and an inventory specialist is probably trying to figure out why the imported apples are selling but not showing up in the 'sold' inventory data.

Whatever. Study the mirror boy. You're not so high and mighty. You've let that be known too many times. You're human like the rest of us and if some 78 cent mistake is going to take you ten minutes of your lunch hour to fix, you'll just as likely as not ignore it.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#31 Sep 30 2014 at 3:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Gbaji, I think we can recognize when a business is 'big' enough, that dealing with a one-time mistake of such a trivial nature is probably inefficient for both the customer and the business.


But "one time" mistakes don't actually just happen one time. They happen a percentage of time. And that percentage is going to scale with the "big store". If I have 100 times as many customers coming through my chain of stores versus your one store, I'm subject to 100 times as many "one time mistakes". Which brings us right back to the point about gross profit margins. I've got 100 times as much overhead, 100 times as many employees, 100 times as many of everything. I really do think it's a mistake to assume that the larger chain store can just absorb losses like that. It hurts them exactly as much as it hurts a smaller store because it's going to happen more often in direct proportion to the relative "size" of the stores.

If one time mistakes happen frequently the problem is not a one-offer.


That was kinda my point. You're the one who labeled such things as "one time". It may be "one time" to you, the customer, but it's never one time to the store. You were presenting this in an unrealistic way.

Quote:
Whatever. Study the mirror boy. You're not so high and mighty. You've let that be known too many times. You're human like the rest of us and if some 78 cent mistake is going to take you ten minutes of your lunch hour to fix, you'll just as likely as not ignore it.


Never claimed to be perfect. But me not being perfect should not justify an excuse for others to deliberately choose to be dishonest. Frankly, the entire line of reasoning is bizarre (not by you, but by Joph).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Sep 30 2014 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Jesus, plank, mote.

Crazy guy, that Jesus.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Sep 30 2014 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Jesus, plank, mote.

Crazy guy, that Jesus.


Surely you aren't claiming that Jesus said that person A isn't wrong if person B points out something he did, but is himself guilty of doing something wrong. He simply said that person B should look to his own failings before condemning person A for his. Only a pretty nutty interpretation of the passage allows one to conclude that we should never point out any wrong behavior by others because we aren't perfect ourselves. Cause that would require that we abandon bothering to have a legal system. Which would be pretty freaking stupid.


I'll also point out that in this context, given that I have resolved the matter with the IRS completely, I should be perfectly free to point out similar failings committed by others (I don't agree that it's similar, given that the motivation was different, but whatever). I'll also point out that my primary point with regards to my story was "don't do this". A point which you have repeatedly failed to grasp, preferring instead to use it as a club to hit me with every time I suggest that someone else might be doing something dishonest or unfair. Whatever your opinion of my own actions, it does not excuse someone else's actions.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Sep 30 2014 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm claiming that your outrage over the "questionable ethics" in this thread were laughable based on your previous actions. Hence, people are laughing at you.

No one is using your refusal to pay your debts as justification for their own actions (given that it was a hypothetical for everyone but Tirith there weren't even actions to defend). Hell, if I thought you ignoring your obligations gave me carte blanche, I'd be eating four thousand dollars worth of purloined apples right now. But no one else here is wandering around saying "For shame!" either. Hearing you go on about it is a classic pot kettle black except here the pot is a four thousand gallon cauldron of question ethics lecturing a tea kettle. Hence, again, people laughing at you.

Edited, Sep 30th 2014 7:07pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Sep 30 2014 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'm claiming that your outrage over the "questionable ethics" in this thread were laughable based on your previous actions.


And I'm saying that you're attacking me out of a desire to avoid discussion of the ethics of a position you took earlier in the thread. You'd much rather rattle on and on about how evil I am because of something I did years ago that has no bearing on this topic than discuss the ethics of your position that it's ok to decide whether to correct a cashier's mistake in your favor based on your perception of the store's ability to absorb the loss. It's about distraction, Joph. You don't want to examine your own ethics, so you attack mine.

Ironic that you later brought up the whole mote and plank thing. Perhaps you should look to your own self first, huh?


Quote:
No one is using your refusal to pay your debts as justification for their own actions (given that it was a hypothetical for everyone but Tirith there weren't even actions to defend).


Maybe not justification, but you're absolutely using it to avoid having to defend your own. Do I need to remind you of this?

Jophiel wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Depends if I care about the store or not, big anonymous chain I'll probably keep my mouth shut but the bottleshop I was at last weekend forgot to ring up one of the beers so the total price was off by €20, I mentioned that because that would've felt like stealing.


Likewise. Large chain, I probably wouldn't have said anything. The small corner store where the owner gives me free desserts with my lunch, I'd have pointed it out.


This is the position you took, but don't want to defend. So you will do anything you have to in order to avoid having to do so. I'm more than willing to discuss at length my mistake with the IRS, my poor judgement initially, and the actions I took to rectify the situation (kind of a key point that I paid my debts, but you appear to be actively engaged in avoiding yours). Are you willing to do the same here? Or are you going to continue to hide?


Do you stand behind your position that it's ok to keep money that isn't yours based on your perception of the other person (business in this case) ability to absorb the loss. If so, could you actually try to defend this? Because I find it reprehensible. And no amount of you finding my actions with the IRS reprehensible as well changes that, much less excuses that. So how about you stop trying to hide behind blaming me and actually defend your own freaking position? Can you do that?

Edited, Sep 30th 2014 6:13pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Sep 30 2014 at 7:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I don't need to "defend" my answer. I said it. I own it. I'm more likely to give a **** about making sure a dollar finds its rightful home if it's someone I give a fleeting **** about versus a store where I don't. No justification, no excuses... I'm okay with that. I'm willing to bet that everyone else in this thread with a similar answer feels the same way. I also sometimes drive over the speed limit, have downloaded music before, bought things online that were very obvious pricing errors and I think I once caught the closing door of a pay toilet before it could latch.

See? I don't need to come up with a thousand excuses about it or try to retcon stories about how I didn't really do whatever I did. Or talk about how the cops caught me and forced me to pay the extra dollar so I'm actually a real moral and honorable guy for it since I settled my debt. On the other hand, I also don't try to act superior to other people who once caught a closing pay toilet door and try to write a little lecture about morals because I know that that would just be ridiculous. Probably be more ridiculous if I did it four thousand times and then tried to talk about how reprehensible the other guy was. But then, if I was that sort of person, I might also be the type to completely over react about someone else's dollar so I could pretend to myself and try desperately to convince myself that I wasn't the sort to try and steal four thousand...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Oct 01 2014 at 6:20 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Pay toilets?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#38 Oct 01 2014 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
A laundromat in a strip mall way back in the day had one. Had to deposit fifteen cents for the door to open. Which, beyond whatever other criticism, was rather inconvenient to depend on owning a nickel and a dime. But it was the only public restroom available at the strip.

Usually people would lightly close the door so it wouldn't latch because we were reprehensible.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Oct 01 2014 at 6:56 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
At a laundromat seems like a quarter would have been a simpler way to go. Maybe they decided 15 cents would make people less likely to use it, less **** to clean up?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#40 Oct 02 2014 at 11:54 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
I'd run out the door with my bags yelling "start the car!!!!"

Seriously, zero moral compass here when it comes to big box stores. Mom and pop, absolutely, it'll hurt them. Big box, my kid regularly "steals" little things by hiding them under his blanket in the cart unintentionally (we hand him things to play with to shut him up), I sleep fine at night (well, not really, but not because of this).

I'm totally going to Athiest hell.
#41 Oct 02 2014 at 12:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
I'd figure if a mom and pop store would be put under by the loss of the $0.75 they should have charged me, they aren't going to be around much longer anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#42 Oct 02 2014 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
See? I don't need to come up with a thousand excuses about it or try to retcon stories about how I didn't really do whatever I did.


And yet, when I questioned the ethics of what you were doing, instead of defending your position, you attacked a completely separate and unrelated decision I made years ago (actually, not you initially, but you took up the banner and ran with it). That's the point. You don't come up with excuses, you just change the subject and avoid discussing or defending your position at all. I get that this is a valid debate tactic, but sometimes I wonder if you're honestly are even aware that you do this (like all the time).

And to be fair, it's not just you who does this. Lots of people do. I guess part of me just bemoans the fact that what passes for discussion and dialogue has devolved, even among just random people (who presumably have some interest in actually discussing the topic at hand, else why respond?), into more of a cat and mouse style debate process than an actual discussion of issues and ideas. Dunno. Makes me sad sometimes. I get when politicians and pundits do this. Their jobs involve distracting people to get them to accept a point of view. I just don't get this when it's just real people having a discussion about something. Because in that case, there's nothing to "win". You're just making everyone lose because instead of actually discussing something, you're spending all your time writing things designed to avoid it.

Ah. Just me mumbling and grumbling, I guess. Get off my lawn, and all that.

Edited, Oct 2nd 2014 5:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#43 Oct 02 2014 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I'd figure if a mom and pop store would be put under by the loss of the $0.75 they should have charged me, they aren't going to be around much longer anyway.


If everyone else thinks that way, maybe they wont.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Oct 02 2014 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Well, crap. In my diatribe at Joph, I missed this one:

Yodabunny wrote:
Seriously, zero moral compass here when it comes to big box stores. Mom and pop, absolutely, it'll hurt them. Big box, my kid regularly "steals" little things by hiding them under his blanket in the cart unintentionally (we hand him things to play with to shut him up), I sleep fine at night (well, not really, but not because of this).


Really? My little brother stole a little pocket sized toy motocycle from a chain grocery store once when we were kids (just picked it up to play with it and "forgot" that he'd put it in his pocket). When my mom realized he had the toy, she immediately turned the family truckster around, drove back to the store, marched him to the store manager and had him return it and apologize. And, at the risk of cross thread shenanigans, he probably got a spanking that night (don't actually remember for sure).

I find your willingness to ignore this bothersome. So your hate for big box stores (ie: The Rich) is so strong, that you're willing to teach your child that stealing is ok (cause he does this "regularly", so either he assumes you know and are ok with it, or he thinks that he can conceal stuff from you and get away with it) if it means that they take a tiny loss to their bottom line? That's pretty ridiculous. But at least you're not spanking him!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Oct 02 2014 at 8:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet, when I questioned the ethics of what you were doing, instead of defending your position, you attacked a completely separate and unrelated decision I made years ago (actually, not you initially, but you took up the banner and ran with it). That's the point.

The point is that you skipped out on your obligations, made no attempt to meet them until forced to do so and now cry when people point this out. That's honestly about all there is to it. Everything else is just you throwing little temper tantrums because you're mad that we're correct. Just own the fact that you're the sort of person who'll avoid paying his debts because Math is Hard. If you can't do that, then at least stop crying when other people bring up it and saying "Unfair! I didn't want to talk about that! You're deflecting!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Oct 03 2014 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
In these situations, I'm very honest. Not drive-back-to-the-store honest, but if the cashier misses something, or I notice them give me too much change, I'll let them know.

The chances of me noticing a product getting wrung up wrong are nearly zero, unless the final total is far off because of it. I'm not generally watching the screen, and I'm lucky if I remember to check my receipts.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#47 Oct 03 2014 at 7:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And yet, when I questioned the ethics of what you were doing, instead of defending your position, you attacked a completely separate and unrelated decision I made years ago (actually, not you initially, but you took up the banner and ran with it). That's the point.

The point is that you skipped out on your obligations, made no attempt to meet them until forced to do so and now cry when people point this out. That's honestly about all there is to it.


Not "honestly" at all. If you were honest, you'd acknowledge when you choose to point this out and why.

It's not about what I did. It's about you not wanting to defend what you did. That would be "honest". But you're not being honest, are you?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Oct 03 2014 at 8:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Not "honestly" at all. If you were honest, you'd acknowledge when you choose to point this out and why.

I'm pointing it out because you're a hypocrite.
Quote:
It's not about what I did. It's about you not wanting to defend what you did.

I didn't do anything, chucklenuts. Remember? It was a hypothetical. Unlike you who actually did do something and yet somehow still found the moxie to start lecturing people on their hypothetical answers while standing hip-deep in mud.

As I said, I own my answer. On the other hand, you're a wildly unethical person who can't come to grips with that and would rather sniff at people giving imaginary answers to hypothetical questions than admit to himself what is in his own mirror. I don't expect you to actually ever own this. The sort of person who would act like you do isn't the sort of person to own who he is. But keep on talking about "honesty" and "ethics". Means a whole lot coming from you; trust me on that one.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Oct 04 2014 at 3:26 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I don't understand this big box vs mom and pop's mentality going on here. I get a little sick to my stomach each time I read one of you say its ok to rip off the big box store but not the mom and pop store because I think your rationale is disgusting. I want to have you removed from society.


By the way, a lot of these franchised stores are owned by franchisees (mom and pop) and not by the franchisor (the chain).
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#50 Oct 04 2014 at 4:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I want to have you removed from society.

But then who would shop at the mom & pop shops? Smiley: frown

In my case, I'm thinking of a specific store. I would mention it there because I have a personal relationship with the owner (not that kind of 'personal') so I'm more inclined to treat it like an inter-personal deal than an unfeeling business transaction. In other cases, it wouldn't be worth the hassle of further inconveniencing my day and making my apple purchase take any longer than it has to. For a dollar, the morality level registers the same as minor speeding infractions or pay toilet doors on the ethics scale. It's not a matter of caring about the buck, it's a matter of the dollar being insignificant enough to not give a sh*t either way so opting for the path of least resistance. Box store or small store (I have no relationship with) there wouldn't matter to me -- I'm just going on my way and next time the cashier should pay more attention.

This works in the other direction. If I see that I was overcharged a buck at Target or double-charged on some insignificant item, I'm not about to go make a case out of getting my dollar back. Not out of any sense of ethics but general ambivalence.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Oct 04 2014 at 6:44 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I want to have you removed from society.

But then who would shop at the mom & pop shops? Smiley: frown
They'll pull themselves up by the boot straps and find some new customers. Or go bankrupt, as per God's will.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 260 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (260)