| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 95620 | 2008-12-12 07:55:00 | Manslaughter Verdict | Sweep (90) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 728296 | 2008-12-16 08:35:00 | So, You would feel the same way if he was thieving your gear? Stealing off someone is not compassion, If he was so giving he would have paid for the item. hell,anyone can give away stuff they don't own, Its called being dishonest. I wouldn't trust him around anything I own. :thumbs: |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 728297 | 2008-12-16 08:36:00 | You're comparing murder with theft? I thought you'd have a bit more intelligence than that. Do you really think my act reflects a further life of heinous crime? My god, Deane. You have one demented mind. Your power of coming to such a retarded conclusion amazes me. lol :lol: :groan: |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 728298 | 2008-12-16 09:02:00 | Hmm...somehow a manslaughter verdict turns into a theft vs good deed argument. But don't let me stop you...I'm with qazwsxokmijn (cuz he's the only one that seems to have a brain) but interesting none the less. And to whoever compared chewing gum to a Merc.....grow up :) |
--Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 728299 | 2008-12-16 10:22:00 | You made a remark about the tagger that was killed - that he had no respect for property. You also clearly implied that society was better off without him as his lack of respect for property would have led to worse things later in life. But you? You have not the slightest pity. You prattle on about his lack of respect for property, imply that it is a good thing he is dead and tell me to go to hell when I remind you of something you freely admitted to on this forum. Yip, it probably is a good thing he is dead. He did no good. Where as what qazwsxokmijn did, he did with good intentions. The tagger on the other hand, unless the guy who stabbed him wanted his property to be tagged, then the tagger had NO good intentions whatsoever. What the tagger did benefited no one. What qazwsxokmijn did, not only benefited the father, the son and the store but also had no benefit for qazwsxokmijn himself. I mean, I myself do some work in the produce department in a supermarket and if a customer asks if they can try something (an apple for example) so they can decide if they want to purchase more or not, I'll let them. I mean, it's the same thing really, it doesn't benefit me, but it benefits the customer and (if they end up buying them) the store. Technically I'm giving them something for free (even if it is of little value) but in the end it can not only help someone make a decision, but can also benefit the store (if they buy them/more). And well, if they don't then the store isn't going to care. [Just like if you're a car salesman and you let someone test drive a new car. They're using fuel - which they're not paying for - and in the end the car salesman is in loss, but on the other hand, that test drive and couple of dollars of fuel can sell a car] Even tho I said being nice gets you no where, which is true in some cases, sometimes a good deed, no matter how small, can make a huge difference. Bascially, Deane, if you were a car salesman, would you not let anyone test drive your car(s) without paying for fuel? Completely different situation but same idea behind it. Dunno if any of that makes any sense, but hopefully someone will get some sort of idea of what I'm talking about. |
--Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 728300 | 2008-12-16 10:36:00 | So, stealing is fine when the person stealing is comfortable with their own justification? The flaw in that logic is the same when applied to a Merc or an apple, and I'm sure we would get a more realistic view if we asked the employer/owner of the items if they endorsed employee theft. Though I'm sure it would all be smoooooooooooooooth once they were informed of the justification.:banana:banana:banana Pretty damn naive. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 728301 | 2008-12-17 08:31:00 | Just like if you're a car salesman and you let someone test drive a new car. They're using fuel - which they're not paying for - and in the end the car salesman is in loss, but on the other hand, that test drive and couple of dollars of fuel can sell a car Absolute crap because the car sales yard has already factored in the costs involved. |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 728302 | 2008-12-17 09:30:00 | Absolute crap because the car sales yard has already factored in the costs involved. Just like supermarkets have already factored in the cost of minor losses. |
--Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 728303 | 2008-12-17 09:43:00 | Supermarkets also have to factor in the massive loss caused by members of the public shop lifting, This doesn't justify the act of shop lifting. | Metla (12) | ||
| 728304 | 2008-12-17 09:48:00 | Supermarkets also have to factor in the massive loss caused by members of the public shop lifting, This doesn't justify the act of shop lifting. And I agree. But no one here is shop lifting. But this also puts a loop in mikebartnz's logic. Car yards have to factor the possibility of any car damage/theft. Doesn't make damaging/stealing a car correct tho does it? |
--Wolf-- (128) | ||
| 728305 | 2008-12-17 10:34:00 | This thread is riddled with ridiculous arguments. I think everyone involved needs to agree that you all need debating lessons and give up. | roddy_boy (4115) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | |||||