Jophiel wrote:
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.
No. You're pointing it out because you'd rather attack me over an unrelated choice I made 12 years ago than defend the position you took just a week ago in this thread.
Quote:
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?
Yes you did. You posted that if you were faced with a given ethical scenario, you would make the wrong choice. Not "I made a wrong choice once in the past, and it was a bad idea, and I'm posting to tell people not to make this bad decision themselves" *(which, btw, is what I did 2 years ago). But "If this situation came up tomorrow, here's the choice I'd make". That was what you "did" that you are tap dancing around defending. You took a position that I find to be extremely unethical.
Quote:
It was a hypothetical.
That's a total cop out. We're having a conversation about honesty and ethics. It's all hypothetical. So what?
Quote:
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.
Yes. Did do. Regretted doing. Advised people not to do. Surely you can see the difference between that and what you are doing?
You, on the other hand, are espousing a very specific ethical position. Not one you just took one time in the past. Not one you regretted taking and have resolved to never do again. And not one you advise people against doing in the future. You are telling us all what you would do in a given situation, presumably any time it may come up in the future. I think it's completely fair for others in the thread (myself included) to question the ethics of that decision. And falling back on "but you did something else once" is a crappy counter.
I find it reprehensible that your decision whether to be honest about a register mistake varies based on your perception of the business itself. I get that you are trying to hand wave it away with "it's not worth bothering about", but you didn't initially say that. You made a specific point of agreeing that you'd be more likely to correct a mistake in your favor at a small mom and pop store than at a big chain store. I don't think that should make any difference at all.
Why do you think it does? Why is this ok? Do you actually think it's less dishonest to do this to a big chain store? I want you to actually explain your logic here. No distractions. no side arguments. Tell us why you're ok with ripping off a chain store in a situation where you'd avoid doing so if it was a smaller shop? I suspect this is tied into some kind of social justice argument (which I find completely BS, for a whole host or reasons), but I'm curious if you can come up with another explanation.
Edited, Oct 8th 2014 7:27pm by gbaji