The diplomatic discussion on using the system to your advantage.

[futuredivot 0]

I did, and since I don't know any smaller words-get someone to break it down for you.

Short version-you took under false pretenses, strictly legal or not-that makes you enough of a thief that I'd drop you like a rock if I caught you anywhere near my stuff.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[Southern_Man 0]

The fact that you have to justify your own actions by pointing out some sort of deficit w/ Wal-Mart's behavior lets everybody know that you already know that it is wrong.

If your actions are morally correct you should be willing to engage in the same behavior w/ any other merchant (w/ similar return policy) as well.

The fraud comes from not disclosing at the beginning of the sale that you do not intend to keep the items. Not legal fraud, but you are mis-representing your purposes through silence.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

I did, and since I don't know any smaller words-get someone to break it down for you.

Short version-you took under false pretenses, strictly legal or not-that makes you enough of a thief that I'd drop you like a rock if I caught you anywhere near my stuff.

Exactly...and it's the three obvious cracks in his character that concern me.

He does it.

He brags about it.

He somehow thinks he's ethically justified doing it.


If I were an employer I wouldn't hire someone like that for any job.

If we were jumping at the same place I would NOT leave him alone near my gear.

If he were family, I'd padlock the dog.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[rhys 0]

Hi Wendy, you are always diplomatic about your approach to debate. i respect that immensly, it is easy to get carried away but you can restrain yourself and get your point across clearly, unlike some..

Quote

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.

As I explained I did that post those words purposfully to get a rection, thats not too hard around here. Many of the people that reacted are usual culprtit post whores. If they they were not a factor I would have looked pretty stupid but they took the bait hook ojne and sinker. I was sure of the reaction that would follow this would have been my basis of proving the knee jerkers theoris incorrect. The extent of it was humourously more than i expected, thanks for the laugh guys.

Until any of you can explain what is actually imorral about what I did, rather than just throwing the term around you have failed to adress the simple point I have made all along.

If you can show me where it says I am not allowed to or should not do that (come on ron, do it), then you may convince me.

Until then I still propose that I was simply utilising an offer that had been presented to me.

It seems to me you lot for the most part are obviously too capricious or meek to do such things as you care too much about what people think about you, rather than what is actually right or wrong! This is all to common in society today and is a major contributing factor in the rising social, environmental and econimical probelms we currently face!

I'm sure you would all like a free ride, but wal mart are betting you won't!

Go on treat yorself, on walmart! Whatever you choose. If you only do it once (as i did) you will never have a problem. I almost wish I had been a little more luxurious now! but i'm not greedy!

Ha ha ha!

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

[lawrocket 3]

I think that the issue is more dependent on your conduct, versus the recipient.

I think it was last year that a study came out. They found that the more extreme a person's convictions are, the more hypocritical they are likely to be because they justify their behavior by their extreme view of the conduct of the other.

It's why Christian wackos will kill doctors performing abortions. They can self-justify murder because the other guy is bad enough.

It's why "peace protests" turn violent.

It's why the founder of ACORN justifies embezzlement.

Etc.

The issue also becomes that the lines of what is an acceptable Target (pun intended) become more blurry. It's justifiable againt Walmart. Then it becomes Costco. Then Target. Then mom and pop.

That's all. Is what you did acceptable conduct? No. You view Walmart as an acceptable victim. When somebody views YOU as an acceptable target for such conduct, you'd likely see differently.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,444]

Quote

Until any of you can explain what is actually imorral about it rather than just throwing the term you have failed to adress the simple point I have made all along.

I explained that in the rest of the post. If you'd refute those points, then it's a discussion. Until then, it's two-sided pontification. DZ.com is really good at multi-sided pontification

Morality and legality aren't the same circle. Some legal things are immoral, and some moral things are illegal.

And Lawrocket: thanks for articulating it well!

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)

[Butters 0]

Quote

Until any of you can explain what is actually imorral about it rather than just throwing the term you have failed to adress the simple point I have made all along.

The definition of moral is of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.

Quote

If you can show me where it says I am not allowed to do that, then you may convince me.

What might be right legally is not always right behaviorally (and thus morally).

Quote

It seems to me you lot for the most part are obviously too capricious or meek to do such things as you care too much about what people think about you rather than what is actually right or wrong!

It seems to me that they care more about what is right behaviorally (and thus morally).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Hi Wendy, you are always diplomatic about your approach to debate. i respect that immensly, it is easy to get carried away but you can restrain yourself and get your point across clearly, unlike some..

Quote

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.

As I explained I did that post those words purposfully to get a rection, thats not too hard around here. Many of the people that reacted are usual culprtit post whores. If they they were not a factor I would have looked pretty stupid but they took the bait hook ojne and sinker. I was sure of the reaction that would follow this would have been my basis of proving the knee jerkers theoris incorrect. The extent of it was humourously more than i expected, thanks for the laugh guys.

Until any of you can explain what is actually imorral about what I did, rather than just throwing the term around you have failed to adress the simple point I have made all along.

If you can show me where it says I am not allowed to or should not do that (come on ron, do it), then you may convince me.

Until then I still propose that I was simply utilising an offer that had been presented to me.

It seems to me you lot for the most part are obviously too capricious or meek to do such things as you care too much about what people think about you, rather than what is actually right or wrong! This is all to common in society today and is a major contributing factor in the rising social, environmental and econimical probelms we currently face!

I'm sure you would all like a free ride, but wal mart are betting you won't!

Go on treat yorself, on walmart! Whatever you choose. If you only do it once (as i did) you will never have a problem. I almost wish I had been a little more luxurious now! but i'm not greedy!

Ha ha ha!

Your mother must be so proud

"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

You view Walmart as an acceptable victim.

a victim of thier own greed, they are the ones that made the deal, i am the one that used it.

By the way I probably would do it to my parents, I don't se how thay would have a problem lending me some camping equipment, the hardest part would be convincing them that I don't need to keep it after I have used it.

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

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

By the way I probably would do it to my parents,

Probably?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

By the way I probably would do it to my parents,

Probably?

What I find really telling in examples such as this is, not so much the actions but rather, the justifications people like this use

Sad really

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

[Hooknswoop 19]

Would you steal?

Would you steal from a thief?

Would you steal from someone that stole from you?

I don't think the intent of Wal-Mart's return policy is for people to buy something, knowing they can use it and then return it for a refund. REI has a similar policy. You could buy a high quality tent, use it and then bring it back for a full refund. REI also rents tents. If you want to rent a tent, then rent one. It is dishonest to buy one with the intent of renting it, and then return it for a full refund.

If I loaned you my car with a full tank of gas and you brought it back empty. Would you say that I didn't specify that you return it full of gas? Or are you just taking advantage of the situation?

You seem to feel that it is acceptable to steal from someone or a company that you feel deserves it.

Who else do you feel deserves to be cheated besides Wal -Mart? Would you steal from me? What does it take to get on your list of people/companies that it is OK to steal from?

Doing what is right, even if you do not have to is called integrity. When you used the system to your advantage, you demonstrated a lack of integrity. Sure Wal-Mart gladly honored their return policy. They stood behind their policy, demonstrating more integrity than you did. A company you feel is corrupt demonstrated more integrity than you. You have lowered yourself below Wal-Mart.

Why did you return the tent? Because you wanted to take advantage of Wal-Mart because you do not like the company. You wanted to steal from a company you feel deserves to be stolen from. You stole from a thief. That makes you a thief.

Derek V

[billvon 2,990]

Let's take this from the opposite perspective.

Let's say Wal-Mart catches on and wants to have some fun with you. What could they do?

They could occasionally double-charge you for things (accidentally of course.) And even the best receipt-checker is going to eventually miss that there were 4 packages of socks instead of 5.

They could occasionally bill your credit card for things you didn't purchase, through a computer error of course. Some might be $20 or $50 purchases that slip under your radar. Some might be $3000 purchases that set off the fraud-prevention detectors at your bank and shut your card down while they sort things out.

They could occasionally UNDER charge you for things, then have the police waiting outside to arrest you for shoplifting. The first time you'd probably get no more than a ride to the station and a warning - but the third time you might spend the weekend in jail until the judge gets back on Monday.

They could occasionally sell you empty boxes of some product, then laugh at you when you tried to return it.

And all of that is completely legal and honest; they could justify it by saying they are simply getting their money back for the rental from an overpaid customer.

[rushmc 23]

This is fascinating to me and I think the perspective you post here is on target

What keeps coming back to me is again, not the act, but the justification (which your post addresses well)

I have, most of us have, done something at one time or another we knew was wrong either at the time or later when we thought about it. At that time it can be thought of in any manner of ways. Many of us would think darn it, I should not have do that. At that point you either fix it or decide to live with it . These choices have issues as well but, I am trying to keep it somewhat simple

But here is an example of going in with intent and saying they had it coming!!?? I just don’t get that myself. Not in my DNA I guess. I have to wonder what else a person who thinks like that can justify? You?

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

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

You view Walmart as an acceptable victim.

a victim of thier own greed,

No. A victim of yours. You got something for nothing - not them. They ate the loss, not you.

They have a policy based on customer satisfaction amd service. You took that kindness and used it against them for your sole benefit and their cost.

[Reply] they are the ones that made the deal, i am the one that used it.

Yep. That's called being a "user."

[Reply] I don't se how thay would have a problem lending me some camping equipment,

So you told Walmart that you were borrowing it? That's different. would you buy new camping equipment from your parents, use it, then return it to them with the idea that you'll get full price?

"Borrowing" is different from "buying, using and returning." In effect you took bought a new car, took it for a joyride, and returned it for full price.

[Reply]the hardest part would be convincing them that I don't need to keep it after I have used it.

If you are borrowing it there would be no need to explain it. "I don't need it anymore, dad.". "No shit, son. That's why you 'borrowed' it."

It's your justification that clouds your viewpoint.

And frankly, I'm not used to being in full agreement with such a large and disparate group. I'm usually the asshole!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,444]

Quote

By the way I probably would do it to my parents

And if I were your parents, I'd probably remember that the second time you wanted to borrow something.

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)

[Bolas 5]

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.

Fixed it.

The scary part is he won't even admit it is wrong and insists on defending his behavior.

"Yeah it's wrong but WalMart is a bunch of fuckers." would at least be something.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

It is not something I would do, but it isn't immoral. Fixed it.

The problem with all this is making the assumption that someone wouldn't be a jerk and intentionally use something and not pay for it.

From what I read in the Walmart Website, it isn't even a "satisfaction guaranteed" return policy. It is a no questions asked policy.

I think it would be immoral to say you weren't satisfied with the tent after using it, but in this case satisfication is not relevant.

Let me reiterate this is not something I would personally do. My morals dictate that if I am satisfied with the purchase, I don't return the item. It would be immoral for me to do it, but I can't consider the act immoral in and of itself.

Cheating on your spouse is intrinsically immoral. Taking advantage of a "no questions asked" return policy is not.

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

[champu 1]

Quote

I did it because I hate Walmart...

I’m sure many will oppose my actions. If you are one of these, try to convince me that I did any wrong.

For starters, when you do something out of hate, it's more than likely both wrong and counter-productive. You made the purchase in bad faith as you never intended to keep the items, which is wrong. And of all the things Walmart does, you're shoving one of the few things they do that is actually kinda nice back in their face and daring them to change their policy, which is counter-productive.

Quote

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.

Just because they're aware people abuse the policy and they try to plan accordingly doesn't make abusing the policy right. If someone is aware of Walmart's business practices and chooses not to shop there as a result, it doesn't make the business practices right either.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

It is not something I would do, but it isn't immoral. Fixed it.

The problem with all this is making the assumption that someone wouldn't be a jerk and intentionally use something and not pay for it.

From what I read in the Walmart Website, it isn't even a "satisfaction guaranteed" return policy. It is a no questions asked policy.

I think it would be immoral to say you weren't satisfied with the tent after using it, but in this case satisfication is not relevant.

Let me reiterate this is not something I would personally do. My morals dictate that if I am satisfied with the purchase, I don't return the item. It would be immoral for me to do it, but I can't consider the act immoral in and of itself.

Cheating on your spouse is intrinsically immoral. Taking advantage of a "no questions asked" return policy is not.

Morality is subjective. You stating you think it's immoral yet saying it technically is moral, is contradicting yourself.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,990]

>Cheating on your spouse is intrinsically immoral.

Why? Did you ever say explicitly "I won't have sex with anyone else?" If not, then you're in the clear in terms of morality (by your definition.)

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

>Cheating on your spouse is intrinsically immoral.

Why? Did you ever say explicitly "I won't have sex with anyone else?" If not, then you're in the clear in terms of morality (by your definition.)

Usually the "forsaking all others" bit covers that. Of course some people have open marriages. Hard for me to call that immoral although I couldn't do it.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,990]

>Usually the "forsaking all others" bit covers that.

Well, but again, that doesn't say it explicitly. Presumably if you had sex with someone else and then forsaked them, you'd be complying with the exact literal vow. You'd be violating the _implicit_ promise, of course, but you're doing the same thing by using products for a while and then returning them.

[DiverMike 5]

The keyword is "cheating". If you are in an open marriage or have some other understanding it isn't cheating.

Back to the Walmart example - I would be willing to bet that if I approached the Manager of a Walmart and told him it was my intent to purchase a product, use it, then return it for a complete refund he would still sell it to me. He knows the Vendors have already paid a return allowance and is betting that I will forget or not follow up on returning the item.

If I made my intent clear prior to the purchase, I wouldn't consider the act immoral.

As a tangent, I wouldn't let someone who did this without making his intent clear pack my parachute. I probably wouldn't even share a beer with him.

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

[billvon 2,990]

>If I made my intent clear prior to the purchase, I wouldn't consider the act
>immoral.

Agreed there. It's the prior understanding that is the key.