The diplomatic discussion on using the system to your advantage.

[rhys 0]

Wow, I cannot believe there was such a negative response from the suggestion of returning goods you have purchased off a large (corrupt) corporation after you have used them.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3853557;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

I must admit I intentionally plucked a few strings to get such reactions. This was so I could get some typical knee jerk reactions to dispute later. But that backfired due to some boiling blood!

I would like to keep this discussion/debate diplomatic so we can move forward in understanding each other. I will not make any 'take the piss, and see if you can handle it' comments. It is clear many people cannot handle negative comments towards them without reacting violently.

If this thread gets locked like the previous; I assure you it will not be due to my demeanour.

As many have suggested, it seems to be morally incorrect to return goods after you have purchased them, if you do so intentionally.

That is what the discussion is about and I will agree that it is morally incorrect to do so in cases where the provider is an ethical entity.

In the case at hand however we are talking about Walmart.

It must be clear before we carry on, that I also mentioned in my original post that created such a debacle; that if one was morally opposed to doing such, they should purchase from an independent store instead, it appears that was ignored by many. I assume this paragraph will be ignored by knee jerkers also, let’s see.

Walmart has a no questions asked policy for returning goods within a 90 day period. At least they did at the time I utilised the policy.

I was told this by various people and decided I would take advantage of it, if I did not have to lie or steal.

I stated I no longer wanted the goods at the customer service desk, produced the receipt and they returned my money in cash, no questions asked.

Why did I do this you may ask? I know they only have the policy because people are too meek, proud, or Christian etc to utilise it. I am not of that ilk.

I did it because I hate Walmart and many of the organisations that use the same structure for profit as they do.

While they remain competitive in the marketplace by selling goods a potentially lower price than elsewhere, the do so by taking advantage of the local community and export their profits to other areas.

The social damage and cost to society as a whole from these massive corporations using this structure is very much unacknowledged. They swallow up small businesses import goods and with ruthless tactics and employ the local community at absolute minimum (or below in many, many cases) while taking advantage of the unemployment situation and the desperation of local civilians to meet their basic everyday requirements. Now you may say I sound like a commie, socialist, left wing nutcase as many have before, but am more often than not; misunderstood.

I am not opposed to companies and making profit, I am opposed to extreme greed and corruption. I have a quite successful PTY LTD company now and am in the process of buying a 25% share in another and moving away from my current position. I want to be successful like any other person in their right mind would.

I am also moving toward self sustainability in a natural environment, I am lucky enough to have this handed to me on a sliver platter.

Walmart however want more than that, they want to maximise profits to levels they do not need at the expense of their unsuspecting or desperate employees and anything else that gets in their way. I made a link to a Google search of ‘Walmart underpaid staff’ and there was a plethora of incidents and articles including multi million dollar law suits for morally incorrect actions. Read it. once you have and you still think they deserve any better, explain how?

It must also be clear as it may not be to some, that it is possible to make a profit while actually improving the regions you operate in rather than damaging them.

Walmart are not the only ones like this there are many. Humans are greedy by nature and this is something we must all be fully aware of.

My decision to take advantage of their policy was to take advantage of them, why not they set the precedent. My actions will have no significant impact, at worse the manufacturer may have it returned to them and lose the sale. I’m sure any contractor to Walmart is doing quite well, but the people that physically produced the goods will be taken full advantage of also not in all cases but many. Walmart implemented that policy purposely to increase profit not to do anyone a favour.

It was a little stab at the big guy from the little guy, no more than an itch for Walmart.

I’m sure many will oppose my actions. If you are one of these, try to convince me that I did any wrong. I have morals and I am honest, I broke no rule or law, I didn’t lie and I was completely straight forward in my approach. They offered me my money back if I no longer desired my goods. I had no baggage space and took them up on the deal.

They smiled, I smiled and every one is happy, except a few in up in here! Explain.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[quade 4]

Quote

As many have suggested, it seems to be morally incorrect to return goods after you have purchased them, if you do so intentionally.
That is what the discussion is about and I will agree that it is morally incorrect to do so in cases where the provider is an ethical entity.
In the case at hand however we are talking about Walmart.

No. It simply doesn't matter at all. Two wrongs do not make a right.

It's not ok to murder prostitutes just because you disagree with their moral choices. Nor is it ok to rob gas stations because you think Aramco supports terrorism.

Your argument is silly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhys 0]

Quote

It's not ok to murder prostitutes just because you disagree with their moral choices. Nor is it ok to rob gas stations because you think Aramco supports terrorism.

Your argument is silly.

Your analogies are whats silly, you are comparing a completely legal situation to blatantly violent criminal activity, you'll have to try harder than that i'm afraid. Weak at best!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[quade 4]

Quote

Your analogies are whats silly, you are comparing a completely legal situation to blatantly violent criminal activity, you'll have to try harder than that i'm afraid.

I see, so since we've established you've prostituted the ethics of the situation, we're simply haggling over price.

No. Just like in skydiving where what is safe isn't always legal and what's legal isn't always safe, so too is the relationship between ethics and legality.

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it ethical. In fact, there are some pretty vile things a person can do to other people that are perfectly "legal."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhys 0]

So you have made it clear that you think it is unethical.

Would you care to explain why?

Without ambiguous analogies, explain directly what is morally wrong with what I did, I'm interested.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[quade 4]

Quote

Would you care to explain why?

Because it's fraudulent behavior.

If you have a legitimate reason to return items and the policy says you can that's fine, but to use the items with the INTENT of later returning them for no cost for your usage is dishonest. It's the actual definition of fraud.

Again, it doesn't matter a single bit how Walmart does its business. It's all about your intention going into the transaction and yes, it does hurt somebody down the line regardless of what you think. Somebody ends up eating the cost of the items you've used.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rhys 0]

Quote

Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.

Can you clarify where you beleive I was fraudulent?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billeisele 130]

you think that you are somehow hurting WalMart, WalMart has contracts with their suppliers so the products that are returned to WalMart are sent to back to the manufacturer for credit

the only one you are hurting are the manufacturers, of course all that is in the price of the products they sell

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[billeisele 130]

as for the fundamental agruements, I simply disagree with your assessment of your actions, the intent of their policy and the assessment of yourself as being honest and having morals

to be fair I'm sure you have some morals and some degree of honesty

maybe you should just copy-paste some of the arguements from the Skyride folks into this thread, it would save you some time, they also have some morals and some degree of honesty

this may not be a subject that is best defined by morals and honesty, by it is certainly defined by integrity and character

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[rhys 0]

Quote

you think that you are somehow hurting WalMart, WalMart has contracts with their suppliers so the products that are returned to WalMart are sent to back to the manufacturer for credit

the only one you are hurting are the manufacturers, of course all that is in the price of the products they sell

you are speed reading again arent you!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

as for the fundamental agruements, I simply disagree with your assessment of your actions, the intent of their policy and the assessment of yourself as being honest and having morals

to be fair I'm sure you have some morals and some degree of honesty...

I have no clue of the skyride situation, once again an irelevant topic.

You, can blat on like quade for hours if you want about how wrong you think i am, but both of you have failed to explain what it is that you think it is that I have done wrong.

I'm am a fraud and a thief supposedly, but why, maybe dave can tell us he's a cop? Nah he'd rather comment about it in personal attack in a different thtread about a different subject.

come on you guys explain...

How is it wrong, immoral, against the law or fraudulent?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[jakee 1,556]

Quote

You, can blat on like quate for hours about how wrong you think i am, but both of you have failed to explain what it is that you think it is that i have done wrong.

Quade has explained, in one sentence, exactly what he thinks you have done wrong. You may well disagree with him, but claiming that he hasn't made his position clear only makes it look like you can't read.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rhys 0]

Quote

Quade has explained, in one sentence, exactly what he thinks you have done wrong. You may well disagree with him, but claiming that he hasn't made his position clear only makes it look like you can't read.

Call me blind, I failed to see what you are talking about, he has made some false assertions but has not clarified anything.

If you can please cut and paste the sentence you refer to, I can explain in detail my thoughts, but your post is ambiguious.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

Quade has explained, in one sentence, exactly what he thinks you have done wrong. You may well disagree with him, but claiming that he hasn't made his position clear only makes it look like you can't read.

Call me blind, I failed to see what you are talking about, he has made some false assertions but has not clarified anything.

If you can please cut and paste the sentence you refer to, I can explain in detail my thoughts, but your post is ambiguious.

Quote

If you have a legitimate reason to return items and the policy says you can that's fine, but to use the items with the INTENT of later returning them for no cost for your usage is dishonest. It's the actual definition of fraud.

There is also a link directly to the Fraud definition.



Also Kiwi guy, what you are doing could easily be considered "Theft of Services by deceit"

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

come on you guys explain...

How is it wrong, immoral, against the law or fraudulent?

Your intent makes it fraudulent.

If you purchased the items, intending to use them and keep them and later changed your mind, then that would be morally fine.

That's not what happened.

You purchased the items intending to use them and return them later, essentially "renting" them for free.

Some stores do just that. Auto parts stores often have a "lending library" of expensive specialty tools. You can borrow them by leaving a deposit that will be returned when you bring the tool back in good condition.

If you stole the item from WalMart, that would be theft, right?

Would it be any different if you stole it, used it and then snuck it back?

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rhys 0]

Quote

Quote
If you have a legitimate reason to return items and the policy says you can that's fine, but to use the items with the INTENT of later returning them for no cost for your usage is dishonest. It's the actual definition of fraud.

There is also a link directly to the Fraud definition.

Also Kiwi guy, what you are doing could easily be considered "Theft of Services by deceit"

So i quite literally say "I don't want these anymore" she says "fine" takes the products and gives me my money. Then continues to tell me what a wonderful country New Zraland is as her husband is a New Zealander. We chatted for a few minutes more and wished each other a nice day.

No fraud there, no malice, I don't dislike her or anyone that works there, but I hate the directors of the company for the above stated reasons! never mantioned that to her I just said (and I'll repeat);

Quote

I don't 'WANT' these anymore

Where is the fraud? What theft?

How did I ever decieve them.

There was never a question or agreement of what I ever intended to do with the products when I purchased them, nor any question of why I was returning them.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[futuredivot 0]

So you steal. No excuses, no justification, no other conclusion possible.

A new product has a certain value-a used product carries less value. The difference in value quantifies the theft. Your attitude reveals your lack of character. Feel free to argue my conclusions but the man you see in the mirror is a thief.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

Your intent makes it fraudulent.

Unfortunately, that is not true. I reviewed the WalMart returns policy and the OP is completely within his legal and moral right to purchase an item and use it fully knowing he is going to return it for full credit. It is not something I would do, but it isn't immoral.

Speaking from first hand knowledge, Walmart negotiates returns, defects, and allowances from their Vendors (ours is 4.5%). This is accounted for in our margin calculation. I don't know what the actual return rate is at Walmart, but I strongly suspect it is under 4.5%. They make money, we make money, the consumer is happy.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Unfortunately, that is not true. I reviewed the WalMart returns policy and the OP is completely within his legal and moral right to purchase an item and use it fully knowing he is going to return it for full credit. It is not something I would do, but it isn't immoral.

Speaking from first hand knowledge, Walmart negotiates returns, defects, and allowances from their Vendors (ours is 4.5%). This is accounted for in our margin calculation. I don't know what the actual return rate is at Walmart, but I strongly suspect it is under 4.5%. They make money, we make money, the consumer is happy.

Huh, at last a worthy person with an oyster between their ears, thank you!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

Your intent makes it fraudulent.

Unfortunately, that is not true. I reviewed the WalMart returns policy and the OP is completely within his legal and moral right to purchase an item and use it fully knowing he is going to return it for full credit. It is not something I would do, but it isn't immoral.

Speaking from first hand knowledge, Walmart negotiates returns, defects, and allowances from their Vendors (ours is 4.5%). This is accounted for in our margin calculation. I don't know what the actual return rate is at Walmart, but I strongly suspect it is under 4.5%. They make money, we make money, the consumer is happy.

I agree that there's nothing in the WalMart return policy about this (i looked too).
And that he is legally free and clear.
And that WalMart probably expects a certain degree of this kind of behavior.

My Opinion is that it is still fraud.

And still morally wrong (again my opinion).

It's intreresting that the thread title is "The diplomatic discussion...", but only those who agree with the OP have any brains.

The rest of us are all wrong.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rushmc 23]

You have justified this because you have issues with a profitable company with a good business plan who's return policy you can manipulate to your advantage

(It seems you do the same as you accuse WalMart of in a way)

Me?

My momma raised me to be better than that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rhys 0]

Quote

It's intreresting that the thread title is "The diplomatic discussion...", but only those who agree with the OP have any brains.

The rest of us are all wrong.

what has been undiplomatic about my aproach to this conversation? i have been compared to hooker slapin rapists, murderers, fraudsters, and told I have been braking the law when I have not, I used the system to my advantage.

It is no worse than finding $5 and not taking it to the police station to see if someone lost it, the parody there is that you would not embarress yourself by doing that either, would you return $5 to the police station if you found it on the street?

Be honest with yourself people!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[wmw999 2,514]

One thing to consider is that you're trying to get a free pass on your words yesterday in the other ("undiplomatic") thread. You started the shit-slinging. Not everyone slings it back, however.

Sometimes the legal thing isn't the right thing to do. It's legal to cut in line at a movie theater -- you're unlikely ever to get a ticket, and if no one objects strongly enough, you'll get away with it.

It's not illegal to "demo" skydiving gear for an entire month, with the certain knowledge that you're not buying it, but you just need a rig because yours is down for repairs and you don't want to pay rental.

If you're not willing to tell someone your real intentions when you begin the transaction, it's probably morally doubtful. At least to me.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

but it isn't immoral.

Yes it is. It may not be illegal, but it IS immoral.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[rhys 0]

Quote

Yes it is. It may not be illegal, but it IS immoral.

Seeing you are so outspoken about your thoughts, how about you explain them?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix