How honest are you?

First topic message reminder :

Why do I ask? All will be revealed in a minute. I'm no thief, I don't knock over old ladies and pinch their pensions. I don't like lies for the truth will always come out. BUT, I will take advantage of someone who doesn't pay attention to their job. Let me explain:

I went into a garage recently to fill up. I duly went to the checkout where there are two tills. The one I went to was a young girl, probably late teens, early twenties. As always I pointed to my car and said the pump number, and asked for a packet of baccy. Her colleague on the next till was having a laugh and joke with another customer, and the girl serving me was looking and listening the whole time. She got the baccy and I put my card in the slot, diddled the number. The girl gave me my reciept and off I went. I looked at the reciept as I got in the car and realised she hadn't charged me for the fuel. £40 worth! I casually belted up, expecting the girl to rush out after me, but no, she was serving the next customer, so I drove off. I've never seen the girl there since, not surprising really.

How honest are you? Do you or would you take advantage?

Stooo wrote:

stardesk wrote:I was going to say a lot more about this topic, but as usual a topic has sunk to low levels and fallen into a cesspit. Why oh why can't you people be pleasant with each other instead of spoiling things.

Morals? Look at yourselves instead of judging others.

Where have I broken any rules? I contributed to the thread and got trolled with personal information by this Dallas retard.

What the fuck did I actually do wrong on this forum or is that sort of behaviour encouraged here?

see with the names again
Well i would rather be a retard that a thief thats for sure nobody trolled you you imbecile
The thread is how honest are you
And we know you're not honest at all

Korben_Dallas wrote:

Stooo wrote:

Attacking my grammar now? What is the problem that you have with me that makes you feel that you have to post personal information about me in order to try to intimidate me away from the topic.

Why do I bother you this much?

your grammar?
i am the last person who would presume  correct your grammar

You asked me to explain my comment
i asked you if you really wanted me to
you said crack on
Now you're trying to blame be for granting your request
You claim my facts are wrong and to "do some research"
And then deny saying that when its only two posts above

talk about digging your own hole
becarefull what you ask for stoo people are bound to give it to you

TL;DR: You have no reason to be involved in my RL other than in an attempt to intimidate me.

Korben_Dallas wrote:
Well i would rather be a retard that a thief

Yes I would, if I only could, I surely would...



Meanwhile I await your reasoning for bringing RL into a forum debate. Retard...

In fact, you are the one doing a song and dance about it, not me and I haven't posted anything that could be considered personal because it's all public record

talk about a hiding to nothing
It`s plain you were not the mastermind or perhaps you were and that's why you got caught
Ether way you can't complain since you asked me to explain the comment

Oh FFS. Korben, all this happened years ago, and the fact that it's in the public domain is not a good reason for you to keep on and on about it.

I've agreed with you on the issues all the way through the thread, but now it's just become a slanging match.

Stooo wrote:

Korben_Dallas wrote:
Well i would rather be a retard that a thief

Yes I would, if I only could, I surely would...



Meanwhile I await your reasoning for bringing RL into a forum debate. Retard...

FFs who the fuck do you think you are ? And unless you fancy a wiki page with video`s then perhaps calling me a retard is not the best approach

ps good album

Korben_Dallas wrote:In  fact, you are the one doing a song and dance about it, not me and I haven't posted anything that could be considered personal because it's all public record

talk about a hiding to nothing
It`s plain you were not the mastermind or perhaps you were and that's why you got caught
Ether way you can't complain since you asked me to explain the comment

And still you attempt to justify posting personal details about me again without answering my very simple questions about your motive. Would it help if I posted it in Ebonics in order for you to understand the question easier?

Korben_Dallas wrote:

Stooo wrote:

Yes I would, if I only could, I surely would...



Meanwhile I await your reasoning for bringing RL into a forum debate. Retard...

FFs who the fuck do you think you are ? And unless you fancy a wiki page with video`s then perhaps calling me a retard is not the best approach

ps good album

Threats now? GG   

Korben_Dallas wrote:

ps good album

I've always found it a bit dull. I like something a bit more lively myself. Cecilia is a good track though.

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh FFS. Korben, all this happened years ago, and the fact that it's in the public domain is not a good reason for you to keep on and on about it.

I've agreed with you on the issues all the way through the thread, but now it's just become a slanging match.

yes started by him he thinks £40 is nothing and as he said "who cares" you care i care  
i am sure the attendant cared when she lost that money out of her wages cares
l said "that attitude did not surprise" me no mention of his criminal record for theft
He knew exactly what i meant it was cryptic enough, but he chose to make me expand on the comment I asked him if he was sure he wanted me to do that
he said crack on
Now he is crying personal information when its clearly not and keeps calling me a retard
If He wants a fight then hey happy to oblige

Korben_Dallas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh FFS. Korben, all this happened years ago, and the fact that it's in the public domain is not a good reason for you to keep on and on about it.

I've agreed with you on the issues all the way through the thread, but now it's just become a slanging match.

yes started by him he thinks £40 is nothing and as he said "who cares" you care i care  
i am sure the attendant cared when she lost that money out of her wages cares
l I said was that attitude did not surprise me no mention of his criminal record for theft
He knew exactly what i meant it was cryptic enough, but he chose to make me expand on the comment I asked him if he was sure he wanted me to do that
he said crack on
Now he is crying personal information when its clearly not and keeps calling me a retard
If He wants a fight then hey happy to oblige

Well I don't agree with his opinion on the issue of the petrol, but can't you please stop talking about all that VAT stuff? As I said, it's sooooooo tedious - the festers never stop banging on about it.

I bet Joy Division sooooo wishes he hadn't flounced now. Stupid twat.   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korben_Dallas wrote:

ps good album

love them all
I've always found it a bit dull. I like something a bit more lively myself. Cecilia is a good track though.

i like bleaker street
I have all the albums on my iPad and server and know most of the songs word for word
And yes, cellia is a great track.... As they all are ......now there playing in my head ......thanks stoooo

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Have you ever really been poor? It can really mess with the way you see the world. Or maybe it enlightens you ...

And stardesk, I've done plenty of bad things in my life, I just feel bad about them afterward and try to make amends. The worst times are when nothing you can do can make things better   

Yes Ben, totally agree with your first sentence.
If you're really poor and that £40 meant a lot - and let's face it, £40 is a good amount of money to a poor person - then I can understand someone keeping it.
It can mean feeding yourself and family for a good few days, or not.

It was for petrol. If you can't afford petrol, don't fill the car with it. It's dishonest whichever way you look at it. Being poor doesn't suddenly make theft "honest".

Wow, missed a lot of this thread, but there are a lot of people who can't afford to go without petrol, either. Say you have to drive yourself to a job that doesn't quite meet your needs, but the alternative is no job.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was for petrol. If you can't afford petrol, don't fill the car with it. It's dishonest whichever way you look at it. Being poor doesn't suddenly make theft "honest".

Wow, missed a lot of this thread, but there are a lot of people who can't afford to go without petrol, either. Say you have to drive yourself to a job that doesn't quite meet your needs, but the alternative is no job.

I see you're from the same school of "morals" as stardesk.   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was for petrol. If you can't afford petrol, don't fill the car with it. It's dishonest whichever way you look at it. Being poor doesn't suddenly make theft "honest".

Wow, missed a lot of this thread, but there are a lot of people who can't afford to go without petrol, either. Say you have to drive yourself to a job that doesn't quite meet your needs, but the alternative is no job.

I see you're from the same school of "morals" as stardesk.   

I'm not saying anything about the morality of it. I'm just saying, most people aren't going to calmly lay down and die when society doesn't present them with a way to get by honestly. They'll take what they need.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I see you're from the same school of "morals" as stardesk.   

I'm not saying anything about the morality of it. I'm just saying, most people aren't going to calmly lay down and die when society doesn't present them with a way to get by honestly. They'll take what they need.

Well that makes them thieves. The problem is that some of them try to justify it and claim that they're "honest".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Korben_Dallas wrote:
yes started by him he thinks £40 is nothing and as he said "who cares" you care i care  
i am sure the attendant cared when she lost that money out of her wages cares
l I said was that attitude did not surprise me no mention of his criminal record for theft
He knew exactly what i meant it was cryptic enough, but he chose to make me expand on the comment I asked him if he was sure he wanted me to do that
he said crack on
Now he is crying personal information when its clearly not and keeps calling me a retard
If He wants a fight then hey happy to oblige

Well I don't agree with his opinion on the issue of the petrol, but can't you please stop talking about all that VAT stuff? As I said, it's sooooooo tedious - the festers never stop banging on about it.

Festers ? And happy to
I deleted all that stuff ages ago after I made my point but not hard to find it again it is public information after all but
He seems the one who wants me to go into details
I did ask if he was sure he wanted me to

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I see you're from the same school of "morals" as stardesk.   

I'm not saying anything about the morality of it. I'm just saying, most people aren't going to calmly lay down and die when society doesn't present them with a way to get by honestly. They'll take what they need.

Well that makes them thieves. The problem is that some of them try to justify it and claim that they're "honest".

The moral issue gets clouded when you start to wonder whether it's moral for society to let some people work their asses off and barely manage to get by:



... while other people have more resources than they could ever use and did nothing to deserve them over anybody else.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I see you're from the same school of "morals" as stardesk.   

I'm not saying anything about the morality of it. I'm just saying, most people aren't going to calmly lay down and die when society doesn't present them with a way to get by honestly. They'll take what they need.

unless civilization is falling down around their ears, there is no justification
i have had times when i did not have enough fuel ...so i walked or got a bus
the ONLY exception to this view is food and water
i would not blame a starving person for such actions

ps or medicine

Korben_Dallas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I see you're from the same school of "morals" as stardesk.   

I'm not saying anything about the morality of it. I'm just saying, most people aren't going to calmly lay down and die when society doesn't present them with a way to get by honestly. They'll take what they need.

unless civilization is falling down around their ears, there is no justification
i have had times when i did not have enough fuel ...so i walked or got a bus
the ONLY exception to this view is food and water
i would not blame a starving person for such actions

Where I live, you have to have an automobile to get by. Most employment opportunities aren't within walking distance and buses don't go to them.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that makes them thieves. The problem is that some of them try to justify it and claim that they're "honest".

The moral issue gets clouded when you start to wonder whether it's moral for society to let some people work their asses off and barely manage to get by:



... while other people have more resources than they could ever use and did nothing to deserve them over anybody else.

It's not clouded for me - theft is theft.

Mind you, if someone nicks something out of a bin at a supermarket where they chuck the out-of-date stuff, it's a bit silly to prosecute them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that makes them thieves. The problem is that some of them try to justify it and claim that they're "honest".

The moral issue gets clouded when you start to wonder whether it's moral for society to let some people work their asses off and barely manage to get by:



... while other people have more resources than they could ever use and did nothing to deserve them over anybody else.

It's not clouded for me - theft is theft.

Mind you, if someone nicks something out of a bin at a supermarket where they chuck the out-of-date stuff, it's a bit silly to prosecute them.

Totally agree on the latter point. On the former -- I'm not saying theft isn't theft, but to people facing either destitution or being labeled as, or even punished as, a thief, it's an academic question. I know I would prioritize surviving over worrying about being a thief, if I was in that situation.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I see you're from the same school of "morals" as stardesk.   

I'm not saying anything about the morality of it. I'm just saying, most people aren't going to calmly lay down and die when society doesn't present them with a way to get by honestly. They'll take what they need.

unfortunatly ben you then end up with a lot of Cliven Bundy`s

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not clouded for me - theft is theft.

Mind you, if someone nicks something out of a bin at a supermarket where they chuck the out-of-date stuff, it's a bit silly to prosecute them.

Totally agree on the latter point. On the former -- I'm not saying theft isn't theft, but to people facing either destitution or being labeled as, or even punished as, a thief, it's an academic question. I know I would prioritize surviving over worrying about being a thief, if I was in that situation.

As you should as anybody should however that in this situation it not a survival issue

Korben_Dallas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I see you're from the same school of "morals" as stardesk.   

I'm not saying anything about the morality of it. I'm just saying, most people aren't going to calmly lay down and die when society doesn't present them with a way to get by honestly. They'll take what they need.

unfortunatly ben you then end up with a lot of Cliven Bundy`s

Nah, Bundy's a multimillionaire, not a desperate person taking what he needed to survive.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Korben_Dallas wrote:
unless civilization is falling down around their ears, there is no justification
i have had times when i did not have enough fuel ...so i walked or got a bus
the ONLY exception to this view is food and water
i would not blame a starving person for such actions

Where I live, you have to have an automobile to get by. Most employment opportunities aren't within walking distance and buses don't go to them.

Mmmm that sounds like a business opportunity if ever i heard one

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Korben_Dallas wrote:
unfortunatly ben you then end up with a lot of Cliven Bundy`s

Nah, Bundy's a multimillionaire, not a desperate person taking what he needed to survive.

indeed, but I am sure if you asked him he would disagree
So where do we draw the line

Stooo wrote:

Korben_Dallas wrote:
FFs who the fuck do you think you are ? And unless you fancy a wiki page with video`s then perhaps calling me a retard is not the best approach

ps good album

Threats now? GG     

your the one calling names and being aggresive ythink i am gona let that slide ....you suite your name all right stuoooo..pid

@KD and Raggs
the problem is None of the people with money have any problem taking if off you or anyone else.
The Idea that it is Morally acceptable to make huge profit margins is NEW even in ancient Rome There was Usury laws preventing it. Capitalism is just a falsely legitimised excuse deception and theft.
Because Deception and theft at 2 of Homo Sapien's Key traits.

I have spent a while thining about this and have to say Star that I am surprised at you....
I find what you did morally reprehensible and your attitude towards that young cashier quite callous...have you never had a day when your concentartion was less than it should have been...have you never made a mistake?

now this thread is interesting

we have

Star who did this (morally reprehensible act)
Ben...who trivialises/attempts to find justification
Veya...the same
stoo ...who dont give a monkeys

bear in mind it is the young lass that will have to find the missing 40 quid....


NOW...I dont know about Stoo...is he a "godless athiest"??? dunno...so I'll leave him out for now


BUT the other 3 prime suspects are.....you got it godless athiests

Is there something about being an athiest that destoys your moral compass??
perhaps without spirituality you are morally bereft??

they hide personal theft behind the revulsion of corporate theft, as if 2 wrongs make a right....

hmmmmm...interesting.....

Vic, please stop putting words in my mouth. I've never said it isn't wrong to steal. I've tried to put it in a more complex and realistic context -- maybe that's the part you're having so much trouble with.

veya_victaous wrote:@KD and Raggs
the problem is None of the people with money have any problem taking if off you or anyone else.
The Idea that it is Morally acceptable to make huge profit margins is NEW even in ancient Rome There was Usury laws preventing it. Capitalism is just a falsely legitimised excuse deception and theft.
Because Deception and theft at 2 of Homo Sapien's Key traits.

can`t disagree veya

victorisnotamused wrote:I have spent a while thining about this and have to say Star that I am surprised at you....
I find what you did morally reprehensible and your attitude towards that young cashier quite callous...have you never had a day when your concentartion was less than it should have been...have you never made a mistake?

now this thread is interesting

we have

Star who did this (morally reprehensible act)
Ben...who trivialises/attempts to find justification
Veya...the same
stoo ...who dont give a monkeys

bear in mind it is the young lass that will have to find the missing 40 quid....


NOW...I dont know about Stoo...is he a "godless athiest"???  dunno...so I'll leave him out for now


BUT the other 3 prime suspects are.....you got it godless athiests

Is there something about being an athiest that destoys your moral compass??
perhaps without spirituality you are morally bereft??

they hide personal theft behind the revulsion of corporate theft, as if 2 wrongs make a right....

hmmmmm...interesting.....

i am a athiest Vic so i must disagree
i have a strong moral compass

People are free to not buy stuff though aren't they? They're free to refuse to add to the profits of those companies.

Korben_Dallas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:I have spent a while thining about this and have to say Star that I am surprised at you....
I find what you did morally reprehensible and your attitude towards that young cashier quite callous...have you never had a day when your concentartion was less than it should have been...have you never made a mistake?

now this thread is interesting

we have

Star who did this (morally reprehensible act)
Ben...who trivialises/attempts to find justification
Veya...the same
stoo ...who dont give a monkeys

bear in mind it is the young lass that will have to find the missing 40 quid....


NOW...I dont know about Stoo...is he a "godless athiest"???  dunno...so I'll leave him out for now


BUT the other 3 prime suspects are.....you got it godless athiests

Is there something about being an athiest that destoys your moral compass??
perhaps without spirituality you are morally bereft??

they hide personal theft behind the revulsion of corporate theft, as if 2 wrongs make a right....

hmmmmm...interesting.....

i am a athiest Vic so i must disagree
i have a strong moral compass

hmmm...I'd disagree about the athiest bit ....maybe not a "god lover" but you still have a strong belief in an "ideal" world view...as you alluded to...
you may not be "religious" in any conventional sense, but you most certainly have a strong spirituality

Its not so much about a "strong" moral compass as much as being certain its well bolted to the deck..... ::D:: 

@ Ben

not putting words into your mouth at all..merely pointing out the ones that appear NOT to be in your mouth....you either missed or refuse to see that it was the young lass that it cost...possibly dearly...and that Star has no consideration for that fact....
Nor does any of the justifying waffle of "not quite making it" apply either as far as anyone knows....
It is not so much you lack of condemnation alone, but the lack of that, compounded by your aparent justification for such actions under some circumstances speaks volumes.

as they say...this is not a "victimless crime" against a monster corporation, but one which clearly will and possibly has impacted a young individual severely....

victorisnotamused wrote:

Korben_Dallas wrote:
i am a athiest Vic so i must disagree
i have a strong moral compass

hmmm...I'd disagree about the athiest bit ....maybe not a "god lover" but you still have a strong belief in an "ideal" world view...as you alluded to...
you may not be "religious" in any conventional sense, but you most certainly have a strong spirituality

Its not so much about a "strong" moral compass as much as being certain its well bolted to the deck..... ::D:: 

@ Ben

not putting words into your mouth at all..merely pointing out the ones that appear NOT to be in your mouth....you either missed or refuse to see that it was the young lass that it cost...possibly dearly...and that Star has no consideration for that fact....
Nor does any of the justifying waffle of "not quite making it" apply either as far as anyone knows....
It is not so much you lack of condemnation alone, but the lack of that, compounded by your aparent justification for such actions under some circumstances speaks volumes.

as they say...this is not a "victimless crime" against a monster corporation, but one which clearly will and possibly has impacted a young individual severely....

spirituality has been defined as a process of personal transformation in accordance with religious ideals
i have no religious ideals at all
If anything I would consider myself a humanist

Addition to my last post....

Now I've put my finger on it

an interesting tactic...

introduce an irrelevent, different, but similar looking argument into the debate....
in this case the desperate "not quite making it " argument which might, just, under certain circumstances be justifiable, and in the context of the original argument, implies justification for the original act, even though the conditions necessary for the false argument to work are not present....

Korben_Dallas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

hmmm...I'd disagree about the athiest bit ....maybe not a "god lover" but you still have a strong belief in an "ideal" world view...as you alluded to...
you may not be "religious" in any conventional sense, but you most certainly have a strong spirituality

Its not so much about a "strong" moral compass as much as being certain its well bolted to the deck..... ::D:: 

@ Ben

not putting words into your mouth at all..merely pointing out the ones that appear NOT to be in your mouth....you either missed or refuse to see that it was the young lass that it cost...possibly dearly...and that Star has no consideration for that fact....
Nor does any of the justifying waffle of "not quite making it" apply either as far as anyone knows....
It is not so much you lack of condemnation alone, but the lack of that, compounded by your aparent justification for such actions under some circumstances speaks volumes.

as they say...this is not a "victimless crime" against a monster corporation, but one which clearly will and possibly has impacted a young individual severely....

spirituality has been defined as a process of personal transformation in accordance with religious ideals
i have no religious ideals at all
If anything I would consider myself a humanist

if you remove "religious" from the definition you gave and replace it with a neutral descriptor thus

"a process of personal transformation in accordance with certain ideals"
what then

define religion

where does
"humanist" sit? Is even that not a "religion" in the strictest sense...Does a religion need a "god" or merely a "goal to aim for"?

You have Ideals, indeed very high ideals, and the attainment of those is the goal ....

think outside the box.......

victorisnotamused wrote:

Korben_Dallas wrote:
spirituality has been defined as a process of personal transformation in accordance with religious ideals
i have no religious ideals at all
If anything I would consider myself a humanist

if you remove "religious" from the definition you gave and replace it with a neutral descriptor thus

"a process of personal transformation in accordance with certain ideals"
what then

define religion

where does
"humanist" sit? Is even that not a "religion" in the strictest sense...Does a religion need a "god" or merely a "goal to aim for"?

You have Ideals, indeed very high ideals, and the attainment of those is the goal ....

think outside the box.......

"a process of personal transformation in accordance with certain ideals"
Yes, that's sits better with me and for sure i have high ideals
humanists generally prefer critical thinking and evidence over established doctrine or faith like religion

Define religion
Religion is a system of belief that does not rely on facts or evidence its resistance to change and because of that, many religious conflicts ensue "my god god is better than your god "religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanly to an order of existence an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

Humanism is the opposite

victorisnotamused wrote:

Korben_Dallas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:I have spent a while thining about this and have to say Star that I am surprised at you....
I find what you did morally reprehensible and your attitude towards that young cashier quite callous...have you never had a day when your concentartion was less than it should have been...have you never made a mistake?

now this thread is interesting

we have

Star who did this (morally reprehensible act)
Ben...who trivialises/attempts to find justification
Veya...the same
stoo ...who dont give a monkeys

bear in mind it is the young lass that will have to find the missing 40 quid....


NOW...I dont know about Stoo...is he a "godless athiest"???  dunno...so I'll leave him out for now


BUT the other 3 prime suspects are.....you got it godless athiests

Is there something about being an athiest that destoys your moral compass??
perhaps without spirituality you are morally bereft??

they hide personal theft behind the revulsion of corporate theft, as if 2 wrongs make a right....

hmmmmm...interesting.....

i am a athiest Vic so i must disagree
i have a strong moral compass

hmmm...I'd disagree about the athiest bit ....maybe not a "god lover" but you still have a strong belief in an "ideal" world view...as you alluded to...
you may not be "religious" in any conventional sense, but you most certainly have a strong spirituality

Its not so much about a "strong" moral compass as much as being certain its well bolted to the deck..... ::D:: 

@ Ben

not putting words into your mouth at all..merely pointing out the ones that appear NOT to be in your mouth....you either missed or refuse to see that it was the young lass that it cost...possibly dearly...and that Star has no consideration for that fact....
Nor does any of the justifying waffle of "not quite making it" apply either as far as anyone knows....
It is not so much you lack of condemnation alone, but the lack of that, compounded by your aparent justification for such actions under some circumstances speaks volumes.

as they say...this is not a "victimless crime" against a monster corporation, but one which clearly will and possibly has impacted a young individual severely....

First off, I don't feel like I need to repeat points that have already been made so that people "know where I stand." I'd hope I'm given the benefit of the doubt at least to the point where it's assumed I wouldn't want to see the girl get in trouble or lose her job.

I don't know that she would, though. In my own experience in retail, we had someone steal a video box set while I was on the job and I got a talking-to, but not fired, or my pay docked. Since the story stardesk told undoubtedly happens pretty often, my thought is that she probably won't suffer too much, if at all -- but I don't know.

I just won't sit back and acting like someone breaking into my house and stealing my computer because they want it to be their computer is the same thing as a hungry person shoplifting food. To just say "theft is theft" is too simplistic.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

hmmm...I'd disagree about the athiest bit ....maybe not a "god lover" but you still have a strong belief in an "ideal" world view...as you alluded to...
you may not be "religious" in any conventional sense, but you most certainly have a strong spirituality

Its not so much about a "strong" moral compass as much as being certain its well bolted to the deck..... ::D:: 

@ Ben

not putting words into your mouth at all..merely pointing out the ones that appear NOT to be in your mouth....you either missed or refuse to see that it was the young lass that it cost...possibly dearly...and that Star has no consideration for that fact....
Nor does any of the justifying waffle of "not quite making it" apply either as far as anyone knows....
It is not so much you lack of condemnation alone, but the lack of that, compounded by your aparent justification for such actions under some circumstances speaks volumes.

as they say...this is not a "victimless crime" against a monster corporation, but one which clearly will and possibly has impacted a young individual severely....

First off, I don't feel like I need to repeat points that have already been made so that people "know where I stand." I'd hope I'm given the benefit of the doubt at least to the point where it's assumed I wouldn't want to see the girl get in trouble or lose her job.

I don't know that she would, though. In my own experience in retail, we had someone steal a video box set while I was on the job and I got a talking-to, but not fired, or my pay docked. Since the story stardesk told undoubtedly happens pretty often, my thought is that she probably won't suffer too much, if at all -- but I don't know.

I just won't sit back and acting like someone breaking into my house and stealing my computer because they want it to be their computer is the same thing as a hungry person shoplifting food. To just say "theft is theft" is too simplistic.

true we don`t know what happened after the fact and any repercussions she may or may not have suffered are conjecture
However, as I said my son worked in a shell garage for 4 months and right at the start he was told any till shortages he was responsible for
And they would come out of his wages his very poor wages i might add

victorisnotamused wrote:I have spent a while thining about this and have to say Star that I am surprised at you....
I find what you did morally reprehensible and your attitude towards that young cashier quite callous...have you never had a day when your concentartion was less than it should have been...have you never made a mistake?

now this thread is interesting

we have

Star who did this (morally reprehensible act)
Ben...who trivialises/attempts to find justification
Veya...the same
stoo ...who dont give a monkeys

bear in mind it is the young lass that will have to find the missing 40 quid....


NOW...I dont know about Stoo...is he a "godless athiest"???  dunno...so I'll leave him out for now


BUT the other 3 prime suspects are.....you got it godless athiests

Is there something about being an athiest that destoys your moral compass??
perhaps without spirituality you are morally bereft??

they hide personal theft behind the revulsion of corporate theft, as if 2 wrongs make a right....

hmmmmm...interesting.....

I AM NOT GOD LESS
I HAVE FAR MORE GODS THAN ANY FUCKING MONOTHEIST!!!!

Do you think I am joking when I say I worship the Great Rainbow Serpent and thousands of other Gods???  I AM NOT JOKING

I will take Lesson in morality for a Fucking Crocodile before an Englishmen!!!
Englishmen the MOST MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE Creature to EVER WALK THE EARTH. Seriously Taking 40 bucks is a big deal? but Wiping out entire Cultures is NOT Stealing thousands of square miles on land is Fine if the people you are taking it from don't speak English...  take 40 bucks from someone that FUCKED up, but if they speak English it morally terrible..


A MORAL SOCIETY WOULD NOT ALLOW THE CEO TO EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE

AND here SHE would not have too as it is the CEOs fucking problem but of course fools like you are too concerned about 40 dollars to look at large scale crimes committed under the guise of "it's just they way we do it, because some rich British ---- decided to do it that way centuries ago" Systematically stealing off employee's for our corporate failure to ensure adequate systems. Your whole Idea of Morality is that Someone deserves something just because their ancestors Stole of killed their way to profitability... If it was good enough for their ancestors to do to another it is good enough for another to do to them.

Raggamuffin wrote:People are free to not buy stuff though aren't they? They're free to refuse to add to the profits of those companies.

No people are not free to not buy stuff.

Irrelevant Anyway, the very suggestion is the HEIGHT of IMMORALITY to every decent Society and Ethnicity on the planet(obviously that does Not include British or any Anglo societies)

I will Add the Current Christian Idea of Being Moral is Only the current Idea BECAUSE THEY LITERALLY MURDERED everyone that disagreed. Anyone that Said "you know what I don't think being form Europe entitles you to Take Our Tribes Land is FUCKING DEAD"

So Whatever morality a Christian wants to claim is ZERO relevance.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/07/3468368/study-white-people-support-harsher-criminal-laws-if-they-think-more-black-people-are-arrested/

Study: White People Support Harsher Criminal Laws If They Think More Black People Are Arrested

Justice or Just us

Your Morality is just a lie proposed by those that have already stolen more than they can carry..

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

hmmm...I'd disagree about the athiest bit ....maybe not a "god lover" but you still have a strong belief in an "ideal" world view...as you alluded to...
you may not be "religious" in any conventional sense, but you most certainly have a strong spirituality

Its not so much about a "strong" moral compass as much as being certain its well bolted to the deck..... ::D:: 

@ Ben

not putting words into your mouth at all..merely pointing out the ones that appear NOT to be in your mouth....you either missed or refuse to see that it was the young lass that it cost...possibly dearly...and that Star has no consideration for that fact....
Nor does any of the justifying waffle of "not quite making it" apply either as far as anyone knows....
It is not so much you lack of condemnation alone, but the lack of that, compounded by your aparent justification for such actions under some circumstances speaks volumes.

as they say...this is not a "victimless crime" against a monster corporation, but one which clearly will and possibly has impacted a young individual severely....

First off, I don't feel like I need to repeat points that have already been made so that people "know where I stand." I'd hope I'm given the benefit of the doubt at least to the point where it's assumed I wouldn't want to see the girl get in trouble or lose her job.

I don't know that she would, though. In my own experience in retail, we had someone steal a video box set while I was on the job and I got a talking-to, but not fired, or my pay docked. Since the story stardesk told undoubtedly happens pretty often, my thought is that she probably won't suffer too much, if at all -- but I don't know.

I just won't sit back and acting like someone breaking into my house and stealing my computer because they want it to be their computer is the same thing as a hungry person shoplifting food. To just say "theft is theft" is too simplistic.

Someone stealing the videos is a different scenario because that was obvious shoplifting. In the case of the petrol, it was the girl who did not register the sale of the petrol, so it's different.

Stardesk said that he hadn't seen the girl there since, and wasn't surprised. That implies that he thought she might have been sacked. Whether she was or not isn't really the point, the point is that he doesn't care and even thinks she deserved it.

Of course theft is theft. Some kinds of theft can be overlooked more than others, but it's all still theft.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:People are free to not buy stuff though aren't they? They're free to refuse to add to the profits of those companies.

No people are not free to not buy stuff.

Irrelevant Anyway, the very suggestion is the HEIGHT of IMMORALITY to every decent Society and Ethnicity on the planet(obviously that does Not include British or any Anglo societies)

They're forced to go and buy new clothes and TVs?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:

hmmm...I'd disagree about the athiest bit ....maybe not a "god lover" but you still have a strong belief in an "ideal" world view...as you alluded to...
you may not be "religious" in any conventional sense, but you most certainly have a strong spirituality

Its not so much about a "strong" moral compass as much as being certain its well bolted to the deck..... ::D:: 

@ Ben

not putting words into your mouth at all..merely pointing out the ones that appear NOT to be in your mouth....you either missed or refuse to see that it was the young lass that it cost...possibly dearly...and that Star has no consideration for that fact....
Nor does any of the justifying waffle of "not quite making it" apply either as far as anyone knows....
It is not so much you lack of condemnation alone, but the lack of that, compounded by your aparent justification for such actions under some circumstances speaks volumes.

as they say...this is not a "victimless crime" against a monster corporation, but one which clearly will and possibly has impacted a young individual severely....

First off, I don't feel like I need to repeat points that have already been made so that people "know where I stand." I'd hope I'm given the benefit of the doubt at least to the point where it's assumed I wouldn't want to see the girl get in trouble or lose her job.

I don't know that she would, though. In my own experience in retail, we had someone steal a video box set while I was on the job and I got a talking-to, but not fired, or my pay docked. Since the story stardesk told undoubtedly happens pretty often, my thought is that she probably won't suffer too much, if at all -- but I don't know.

I just won't sit back and acting like someone breaking into my house and stealing my computer because they want it to be their computer is the same thing as a hungry person shoplifting food. To just say "theft is theft" is too simplistic.

Someone stealing the videos is a different scenario because that was obvious shoplifting. In the case of the petrol, it was the girl who did not register the sale of the petrol, so it's different.

Stardesk said that he hadn't seen the girl there since, and wasn't surprised. That implies that he thought she might have been sacked. Whether she was or not isn't really the point, the point is that he doesn't care and even thinks she deserved it.

Of course theft is theft. Some kinds of theft can be overlooked more than others, but it's all still theft.

OK, that's one example. But I believe this debate got steered over to talking about those who are desperate. I'm on the side of them, whether they have to steal food or fuel, because I honestly don't believe I'd be where I am without that sort of thing -- not that my dad ever talked about it, but we did live in the car for a short time.

As far as the girl who may have gotten sacked goes ... was she a teenager trying to earn a little extra money? Did she get sacked for that one thing, or was it for another reason?

Or did her livelihood depend on that job? I guess it's up to stardesk to let us know, if he even knows (which I doubt), but the fact he didn't see her there again means little. If she screwed up on his bill, it's easy enough to guess she screwed up on other aspects of her job. Who knows? It might have been enough to make her more serious about her job duties. For all we know, he might have done her a favor in the long run.

Speaking of which -- forty pounds of fuel is a piss-drop in the ocean, in the long run.

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:People are free to not buy stuff though aren't they? They're free to refuse to add to the profits of those companies.

No people are not free to not buy stuff.

Irrelevant Anyway, the very suggestion is the HEIGHT of IMMORALITY to every decent Society and Ethnicity on the planet(obviously that does Not include British or any Anglo societies)

They're forced to go and buy new clothes and TVs?

Maybe not TVs, but clothing is surely a necessity ... never mind what Sphinx may try to lay on you