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?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't get that. If the price on a shelf is lower than the price of the product, most shops would honour it. Maybe some customers move prices around on a shelf because they know that?

That's because they got caught.  Safeway Stores is among the top businesses being continually investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  They don't need any more trouble; if anyone hints at an offense, they jump.

Nevertheless, the retail game is geared toward deception.  Most of the things you see and figure out...yep, it was intentional.

Well no - I can't see why they would put a lower price on the shelf. When the customer finds out the price is higher, they would want a refund. It's usually by mistake, or the customer has moved it.

Shops are not obliged to sell at the advertised price anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:
Re moving price tags around, the point is that if a product is advertised at a certain price on a shelf - even if the ticket is in the wrong place, most shops would honour that, although they don't have to.

Yes they do, if the FTC or a court orders them to. Were there not specific laws on the books, it would be covered by fraud.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If I found a coin on the floor, I would have no idea who it belonged to. You knew you'd had the petrol and you still drove off without paying, so don't compare the two things. Same with the spade - you walked out of the shop without paying for it - that's shop lifting. I don't get how you can sit here and volunteer the fact that you're a thief, and then try to justify it.

If you know that vegetables aren't fresh, don't buy them - simple.

Nothing excuses what you did.

Re moving price tags around, the point is that if a product is advertised at a certain price on a shelf - even if the ticket is in the wrong place, most shops would honour that, although they don't have to.

Not exactly, Raggs.  Stardust did not "take" with mens res.  Mens res means:

Legal Dictionary wrote:Mens Rea

As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.

A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.

The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind.

Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.

In none of the cases did Stardust act with knowledge of a taking.  He only came upon the fact after leaving the premises.

Of course, mens res can arise after the fact.  This comes up most frequently in those cases where an automatic deposit of a large amount of money into a bank account takes place, and subsequently the money is used.  Even here, however, the prosecution must prove knowledge and intent, and this involves evidence of surrounding facts.  If the owner of the account simply goes about his business, without indication in fact that he knew about the deposit, he is innocent.

If Stardust had never let it be known that he had later looked at the receipt of the petrol purchase, and gone about his business, he could not be convicted.  But in truth he did tell us.  And in fact, the business could easily have recouped the £40 by a later bank exchange...but they obviously either didn't look, or thought it was too much trouble.

He knew he hadn't been charged for the spade before he left the shop, and he had only just got into his car when he discovered he hadn't been charged for the petrol - he was still on the premises.

Anyway, it's more of a moral issue. Stardesk seems to take pleasure in catching people out and stealing from them when their attention is not perhaps fully there. That's dishonest, and it's theft.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
Re moving price tags around, the point is that if a product is advertised at a certain price on a shelf - even if the ticket is in the wrong place, most shops would honour that, although they don't have to.

Yes they do, if the FTC or a court orders them to.  Were there not specific laws on the books, it would be covered by fraud.

Rubbish. It's an invitation to treat. If the wrong ticket is by the wrong product, they're not misadvertising anyway. People should read price tickets properly.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's because they got caught.  Safeway Stores is among the top businesses being continually investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  They don't need any more trouble; if anyone hints at an offense, they jump.

Nevertheless, the retail game is geared toward deception.  Most of the things you see and figure out...yep, it was intentional.

Well no - I can't see why they would put a lower price on the shelf. When the customer finds out the price is higher, they would want a refund. It's usually by mistake, or the customer has moved it.

Shops are not obliged to sell at the advertised price anyway.

Yes they are.  The Federal Trade Commission Act if 1914 was a part of the spate of progressive laws prohibiting retail sales that duped the public:

Wiki wrote:The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent agency of the United States government, established in 1914 by the Federal Trade Commission Act. Its principal mission is the promotion of consumer protection and the elimination and prevention of anticompetitive business practices, such as coercive monopoly. The Federal Trade Commission Act was one of President Woodrow Wilson's major acts against trusts.

The idea is that deceptive practices are a part of restraint of trade, and thus prohibited.  Congress can enact any law it wants.  The FTCA is the law today.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well no - I can't see why they would put a lower price on the shelf. When the customer finds out the price is higher, they would want a refund. It's usually by mistake, or the customer has moved it.

Shops are not obliged to sell at the advertised price anyway.

Yes they are.  The Federal Trade Commission Act if 1914 was a part of the spate of progressive laws prohibiting retail sales that duped the public:

Wiki wrote:The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent agency of the United States government, established in 1914 by the Federal Trade Commission Act. Its principal mission is the promotion of consumer protection and the elimination and prevention of anticompetitive business practices, such as coercive monopoly. The Federal Trade Commission Act was one of President Woodrow Wilson's major acts against trusts.

The idea is that deceptive practices are a part of restraint of trade, and thus prohibited.  Congress can enact any law it wants.  The FTCA is the law today.

I'm talking about the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/441740.stm

In any case, I would say that the main reason why goods have the wrong price under them is that customers pick them up and put them back in the wrong place - usually in a different part of the shop altogether.

I'm talking about Safeway Stores. They are the 2nd largest retail grocery chain in the US.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If I found a coin on the floor, I would have no idea who it belonged to. You knew you'd had the petrol and you still drove off without paying, so don't compare the two things. Same with the spade - you walked out of the shop without paying for it - that's shop lifting. I don't get how you can sit here and volunteer the fact that you're a thief, and then try to justify it.

If you know that vegetables aren't fresh, don't buy them - simple.

Nothing excuses what you did.

Re moving price tags around, the point is that if a product is advertised at a certain price on a shelf - even if the ticket is in the wrong place, most shops would honour that, although they don't have to.

Not exactly, Raggs.  Stardust did not "take" with mens res.  Mens res means:

Legal Dictionary wrote:Mens Rea

As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.

A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.

The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind.

Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.

In none of the cases did Stardust act with knowledge of a taking.  He only came upon the fact after leaving the premises.

Of course, mens res can arise after the fact.  This comes up most frequently in those cases where an automatic deposit of a large amount of money into a bank account takes place, and subsequently the money is used.  Even here, however, the prosecution must prove knowledge and intent, and this involves evidence of surrounding facts.  If the owner of the account simply goes about his business, without indication in fact that he knew about the deposit, he is innocent.

If Stardust had never let it be known that he had later looked at the receipt of the petrol purchase, and gone about his business, he could not be convicted.  But in truth he did tell us.  And in fact, the business could easily have recouped the £40 by a later bank exchange...but they obviously either didn't look, or thought it was too much trouble.

I disagree he said "I looked at the receipt as I got in the car and realized she hadn't charged me for the fuel. £40 worth! I casually belted up, expecting the girl to rush out after me, "

Therefore he had not left the premises he was still on the forecourt and when he drove away and left the premises he knew that he had not paid for his fuel and therefore he had Guilty knowledge(he knew he had not paid ) and wilfulness.(in leaving the premises)

Original Quill wrote:I'm talking about Safeway Stores.  They are the 2nd largest retail grocery chain in the US.

I don't know about the retail laws in the US.

Even if all this is within the law, what about the moral issue? Politicians in the UK claimed certain expenses quite legitimately, and yet many of were morally wrong to do so.

It should also be noted that in many petrol stations Any till discrepancies come out of that persons wages
So you may think the company absorbs such losses however, in reality its the attendant who bares the loss not the company

(my son worked in a petrol station for 4 months )

I also disapprove of the way sales assistants in shops are being mocked. They're only human and they make mistakes. They could lose their job of course, but the likes of Stardesk don't care about that as long as they profit from the misfortune of others.

Korben_Dallas wrote:It should also be noted that in many petrol stations Any till discrepancies come out of that persons wages
So you may think the company absorbs such losses however, in reality its the attendant who bares the loss not the company

(my son worked in a petrol station for 4 months )

Exactly. Still, as long as Stardesk got free petrol ...

Korben_Dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not exactly, Raggs.  Stardust did not "take" with mens res.  Mens res means:



In none of the cases did Stardust act with knowledge of a taking.  He only came upon the fact after leaving the premises.

Of course, mens res can arise after the fact.  This comes up most frequently in those cases where an automatic deposit of a large amount of money into a bank account takes place, and subsequently the money is used.  Even here, however, the prosecution must prove knowledge and intent, and this involves evidence of surrounding facts.  If the owner of the account simply goes about his business, without indication in fact that he knew about the deposit, he is innocent.

If Stardust had never let it be known that he had later looked at the receipt of the petrol purchase, and gone about his business, he could not be convicted.  But in truth he did tell us.  And in fact, the business could easily have recouped the £40 by a later bank exchange...but they obviously either didn't look, or thought it was too much trouble.

I disagree he said "I looked at the receipt as I got in the car and realized she hadn't charged me for the fuel. £40 worth! I casually belted up, expecting the girl to rush out after me, "

Therefore he had not left the premises he was still on the forecourt and when he drove away and left the premises he knew that he had not paid for his fuel and therefore he had Guilty knowledge(he knew he had not paid ) and wilfulness.(in leaving the premises)

Yes, exactly correct.  When he admitted that he had looked at the receipt, he created evidence of mens res. But only after the fact.

The issues isn't after the transaction took place.  The issue is his lack of awareness and intention in the time before the transaction.  He didn't plan, nor did he even know when the transaction was taking place.

Korben_Dallas wrote:

stardesk wrote:
Raggy, let me ask you a question: If you found a coin on the ground what would you do with it? Pocket it or ask around if anyone had dropped it? If you put it in your pocket then that's taking advantage of someone else's incompetence or negligence.
In a nutshell, theft.

...........................

I tend to stick it in the nearest charity box

  

SO do I...

Thanks for all that Quill, it helps put the record straight. Raggy seems to think I'm a cold hearted deliberate thief. That is most definitely not the case.

A company needs efficient, reliable and honest emplyees if it is to run smoothly and profitably. Incompetence and sloppy attitudes should not be overlooked and acted on as is appropriate. If the girl in my case had to pay back the money, or got the sack, so be it, her own fault for not doing her job properly. That does not make me a thief, as there was no initial intent to steal from the company.

Raggy, you can use emotions and guilty consciences if you like, that might apply to me, but again, I'm not a thief.

Harvesmom mentioned above farmer's markets etc. Some of them are most certainly dishonest. I know of two so-called farm stalls selling veg, and fooling the public in to thinking it is their own farm produce. But oh no, that is not the case, as I know for a fact they go to a weekly fruit and veg auction where they buy produce from God knows where. That is deliberate dishonesty.

stardesk wrote:Thanks for all that Quill, it helps put the record straight. Raggy seems to think I'm a cold hearted deliberate thief. That is most definitely not the case.

A company needs efficient, reliable and honest emplyees if it is to run smoothly and profitably. Incompetence and sloppy attitudes should not be overlooked and acted on as is appropriate. If the girl in my case had to pay back the money, or got the sack, so be it, her own fault for not doing her job properly. That does not make me a thief, as there was no initial intent to steal from the company.

Raggy, you can use emotions and guilty consciences if you like, that might apply to me, but again, I'm not a thief.

You coldly decided to drive off when you knew you hadn't paid for the petrol, and yes, that does make you a thief. You disgust me actually.

stardesk wrote:Thanks for all that Quill, it helps put the record straight. Raggy seems to think I'm a cold hearted deliberate thief. That is most definitely not the case.

A company needs efficient, reliable and honest emplyees if it is to run smoothly and profitably. Incompetence and sloppy attitudes should not be overlooked and acted on as is appropriate. If the girl in my case had to pay back the money, or got the sack, so be it, her own fault for not doing her job properly. That does not make me a thief, as there was no initial intent to steal from the company.

Raggy, you can use emotions and guilty consciences if you like, that might apply to me, but again, I'm not a thief.

sorry thats bull
Your intention wasn`t to steal however because you saw the error did not report or return to pay and left the premises with full knowledge you had not paid that does make you a thief
you should have not driven away and should have gone back in pointed out their mistake and paid what where you where due
And you blame the attendant fully

She obviously did not know she made a mistake ...you did before you left the premises

i bet if she had short-changed YOU to the tune of £40 and you only noticed noticed when you got back in your car
You would have gone back in and complained
Trying to put all the blame for your dishonesty on the attendant is crass

Also, to be so crass about the girl possibly being sacked is just awful.   

Are you unable to speak stardesk? What you should have done was to go back in and say something like "you didn't charge me for the petrol". In the shop where you bought the spade, you should have told the sales assistant you were buying the spade rather than stand there like a dork.

Oh dear, what a can of worms I've opened up.

So, you puritanical folk, have you never done anything wrong in your lives? Have you never taken some kind of advantage of someone else or a situation? A situation that could be called into question as to its rights and wrongs?

Raggamuffin wrote:Are you unable to speak stardesk? What you should have done was to go back in and say something like "you didn't charge me for the petrol". In the shop where you bought the spade, you should have told the sales assistant you were buying the spade rather than stand there like a dork.

Yup exactly

stardesk wrote:Oh dear, what a can of worms I've opened up.

So, you puritanical folk, have you never done anything wrong in your lives? Have you never taken some kind of advantage of someone else or a situation? A situation that could be called into question as to its rights and wrongs?

There is no question - it was just wrong, and you stole the petrol and the spade. You are dishonest.

  Ok, so I'm a thieving old git. So be it. You obviously see things from a completely different angle to me.

stardesk wrote:  Ok, so I'm a thieving old git. So be it. You obviously see things from a completely different angle to me.

Hopefully, most people would not see it the way you do.

stardesk wrote:Oh dear, what a can of worms I've opened up.

So, you puritanical folk, have you never done anything wrong in your lives? Have you never taken some kind of advantage of someone else or a situation? A situation that could be called into question as to its rights and wrongs?

puritanical ? hardly the right adjective

And you admit it was wrong ....but you did it anyway

And trying to justify your actions by invoking others behavior tends not to impress judges one little bit

Me and my OH are really honest and we always do good deeds but we never get paid back by karma and hardly get a thanks for our honesty.

To my mind, if you can afford it then give it back, if you're really struggling, keep it and give it back in karma, when you can afford it.

Oh and in answer to the question: my answer is the same.
If I was really,poor I'd keep it but I'd probably have felt guilty but if I could afford it, I'd have gone in and paid.

eddie wrote:Oh and in answer to the question: my answer is the same.
If I was really,poor I'd keep it but I'd probably have felt guilty but if I could afford it, I'd have gone in and paid.

Surely honesty is the same whether you're poor or not. It doesn't depend on how much money you have.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Oh and in answer to the question: my answer is the same.
If I was really,poor I'd keep it but I'd probably have felt guilty but if I could afford it, I'd have gone in and paid.

Surely honesty is the same whether you're poor or not. It doesn't depend on how much money you have.

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   

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Oh and in answer to the question: my answer is the same.
If I was really,poor I'd keep it but I'd probably have felt guilty but if I could afford it, I'd have gone in and paid.

Surely honesty is the same whether you're poor or not. It doesn't depend on how much money you have.

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   

It's true if you don't have enough to eat then you really don't care that what your doing might stop some shareholder getting maximum profit and a CEO might not get a few million bonus.

Just because it is the way we do it doesn't mean it is right, aboriginals were much kinder in the community attitude, one could not have so much more than another that theft could a contemplation.

In Our society the Rich take everyday on every transaction and it fine because it is profit, but take something off them and it theft... even if it was by fault of their own....

On what Quill said (which is very rare here) they will do it and if the consumer doesn't say something they don't get the correct price and the store has STOLEN off who many hundreds of Customers and it make no effort to give the money back.

Honestly and Capitalism are incompatible, who ever is better at deceiving will end up with the better deal. think about bartering that is literally the goal to deceive the other into agreeing to you price which is above the actual value if your the seller (below if you are the buyer) .

Ben: Bertolt Brecht, The Threepenny Opera (1928):

"First comes a full stomach, then comes ethics."

"You may proclaim, good sirs, your fine philosophy
But till you feed us, right and wrong can wait!"
   — Macheath in "Second Threepenny-Finale"; Act 2, scene 3

"Food is the first thing, morals follow on."

"The law was made for one thing alone, for the exploitation of those who don't understand it, or are prevented by naked misery from obeying it."

"Those who are weak don't fight.
Those who are stronger might fight
for an hour.
Those who are stronger still might fight
for many years.
The strongest fight
their whole life.
They are the indispensable ones."

The Threepenny Opera was perhaps the only Marxist opera ever written.  Lol. People have heard the song, Mack the Knife, but they would be horrified if they knew where it comes from.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Oh and in answer to the question: my answer is the same.
If I was really,poor I'd keep it but I'd probably have felt guilty but if I could afford it, I'd have gone in and paid.

Surely honesty is the same whether you're poor or not. It doesn't depend on how much money you have.

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.

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".

What gets me is the total lack of remorse. This kind of theft might have benefited stardesk, but there are consequences for other people. What about the girl? Stardesk doesn't care if she lost her job or not - in fact, he pretty much said she deserved to. So what if she now has no income coming in?

If he realised later he hadn't paid and felt bad about it, it would be slightly more palatable, but it's the crowing about "getting away with it", which is so awful. The story is the same with the spade.

Stardesk seems to frequent this garage, so hopefully they will make him pay for that petrol one day or ban him from the premises.

The 'poor' are more likely to hand in something they found or own up to being undercharged on a purchase.

I'm not poor by any means but I was brought up in a community where it was really difficult to make ends meet and I would hate to think that I would benefit from something that someone else desperately needed. I think that people who are poor, or have been well short in the past, understand that more than many who have never experienced that.
Not true always of course but in the main that's how I see it.

A Moral lecture by Stardesk.

Coming back with cannons firing, don’t lecture to me about what is right and wrong. Don’t stand on your moral high ground, for we are saturated by wrong-doing. Shop advertising is, very often, misleading and fools the public in to buying produce that is often of suspect quality and/or origin. We frequently see on the news, or read in the papers, about Mps we trust and vote for who abuse their positions by claiming expenses for which there is no justification. Big business corporations fiddle their tax. Energy companies are ripping us off with unnecessary high prices. I could go on and on, but I’m sure you’re getting the point.

This world is saturated with illegalities and it’s been going on ever since Mankind invented the first flint spear tip. History is littered with one conflict after another, a never ending battle between opposing forces, both sides believing they are right and justified. Morals? What are they? Nothing but an excuse to perform actions which suit the individual. Who is right, who is wrong? What is right, what is wrong? It all depends on one’s social and national attitudes., and yet within those social attitudes there are conflicts concerning what is right and/or wrong.

In my fuel situation I felt justified in driving off, for the moral guilt was on the girl’s side. It was her conscience not mine, which bore the brunt of any repercussions. Basically I’m an honest and trustworthy person, but in this case I felt justified in my actions. The girl should have paid attention and performed her duties more efficiently. The onus was on her, not me. Despite the cameras in the petrol station, there was never any contact with me by the company, which they could have done quite easily through the car number plate, therefore and as is obvious, the company blamed the girl, not me.

End of lecture.

possession is 9 tenths of the law, who said that?

stardesk wrote:A Moral lecture by Stardesk.

Coming back with cannons firing, don’t lecture to me about what is right and wrong. Don’t stand on your moral high ground, for we are saturated by wrong-doing. Shop advertising is, very often, misleading and fools the public in to buying produce that is often of suspect quality and/or origin. We frequently see on the news, or read in the papers, about Mps we trust and vote for who abuse their positions by claiming expenses for which there is no justification. Big business corporations fiddle their tax. Energy companies are ripping us off with unnecessary high prices. I could go on and on, but I’m sure you’re getting the point.

This world is saturated with illegalities and it’s been going on ever since Mankind invented the first flint spear tip. History is littered with one conflict after another, a never ending battle between opposing forces, both sides believing they are right and justified. Morals? What are they? Nothing but an excuse to perform actions which suit the individual. Who is right, who is wrong? What is right, what is wrong? It all depends on one’s social and national attitudes., and yet within those social attitudes there are conflicts concerning what is right and/or wrong.

In my fuel situation I felt justified in driving off, for the moral guilt was on the girl’s side. It was her conscience not mine, which bore the brunt of any repercussions. Basically I’m an honest and trustworthy person, but in this case I felt justified in my actions. The girl should have paid attention and performed her duties more efficiently. The onus was on her, not me. Despite the cameras in the petrol station, there was never any contact with me by the company, which they could have done quite easily through the car number plate, therefore and as is obvious, the company blamed the girl, not me.

End of lecture.

Well you've just done the same thing as those politicians, so you're in no position to judge them. What they did was disgraceful too.

How can people be civilised if you just copy what others are doing no matter how wrong it is? You think this was a victimless "crime". Well you don't care about the girl, or the fact that she was distracted for a few seconds, and that she might have got sacked for that. You stole the petrol and you blame the girl for your theft. I expect the company did blame her - it's easier to blame the staff than the thief.

I hope the company does contact you and demand the money, and if you refuse to pay it, I hope they take you to court for theft.

Oh, and if someone prangs your car or siphons your petrol, that would be fair enough, yes? After all, the "world is saturated with illegalities" according to you.

stardesk wrote:A Moral lecture by Stardesk.

Coming back with cannons firing, don’t lecture to me about what is right and wrong. Don’t stand on your moral high ground, for we are saturated by wrong-doing. Shop advertising is, very often, misleading and fools the public in to buying produce that is often of suspect quality and/or origin. We frequently see on the news, or read in the papers, about Mps we trust and vote for who abuse their positions by claiming expenses for which there is no justification. Big business corporations fiddle their tax. Energy companies are ripping us off with unnecessary high prices. I could go on and on, but I’m sure you’re getting the point.

This world is saturated with illegalities and it’s been going on ever since Mankind invented the first flint spear tip. History is littered with one conflict after another, a never ending battle between opposing forces, both sides believing they are right and justified. Morals? What are they? Nothing but an excuse to perform actions which suit the individual. Who is right, who is wrong? What is right, what is wrong? It all depends on one’s social and national attitudes., and yet within those social attitudes there are conflicts concerning what is right and/or wrong.

In my fuel situation I felt justified in driving off, for the moral guilt was on the girl’s side. It was her conscience not mine, which bore the brunt of any repercussions. Basically I’m an honest and trustworthy person, but in this case I felt justified in my actions. The girl should have paid attention and performed her duties more efficiently. The onus was on her, not me. Despite the cameras in the petrol station, there was never any contact with me by the company, which they could have done quite easily through the car number plate, therefore and as is obvious, the company blamed the girl, not me.

End of lecture.

moral guilt was on the girl’s side ?

FFs if thats what you think then your morals are totally fucked up
She made an honest mistake
you noticed that mistake and choose to drive of anyway your morals and indeed honesty is the questionable act not hers Guilt is an emotion, an emotion that occurs when a person feels that they have violated a moral standard. i fail to she how she should feel guilty for your dishonesty

Perhaps the girl was new. Perhaps she'd been working hard all day and just got distracted for a second. I can't believe someone would take advantage like that, and then blame the person they took advantage of.

I think y'all have missed the point.  It doesn't matter what the MPs do, or what the wealthy capitalist does, or even the moral dilemma of the girl clerk.  You behave morally because you believe it is right.

A young man was walking out of a hotel.  As he opened the door he noticed a young woman behind him and stepped aside to allow her to exit first.

"You don't need to hold the door just because I'm a lady," flipped the girl, trying to score feminist snaps.

"I didn't do it because you are a lady," said the young man.  "I did it because I am a gentleman."

Each and every time you do something that is dishonest, or wrong in any way, you drive deep down in your own psyche that you are the kind of a person that can do that kind of thing.  In turn, this gnaws at your own self-esteem.

You are spending little bits of yourself, that way.  Conversely, you behave morally because you don't want to live or be like that.  You are outside of the conversation, Raggs; it's the conversation a person has within himself that counts.

Original Quill wrote:I think y'all have missed the point.  It doesn't matter what the MPs do, or what the wealthy capitalist does, or even the moral dilemma of the girl clerk.  You behave morally because you believe it is right.

A young man was walking out of a hotel.  As he opened the door he noticed a young woman behind him and stepped aside to allow her to exit first.

"You don't need to hold the door just because I'm a lady," flipped the girl, trying to score feminist snaps.

"I didn't do it because you are a lady," said the young man.  "I did it because I am a gentleman."

Each and every time you do something that is dishonest, or wrong in any way, you drive deep down in your own psyche that you are the kind of a person that can do that kind of thing.  In turn, this gnaws at your own self-esteem.

You are spending little bits of yourself, that way.  You behave morally because you don't want to live or be like that.  You are outside of the conversation, Raggs; it's the conversation a person has within himself that counts.

"spending little bits of yourself"
I like that

It works the same way as self-affirmation: subliminally, you are telling yourself that you are not the person whom you admire and respect, so that you build up an internal conflict that works against your self-esteem.

stardesk wrote:A Moral lecture by Stardesk.

Coming back with cannons firing, don’t lecture to me about what is right and wrong. Don’t stand on your moral high ground, for we are saturated by wrong-doing. Shop advertising is, very often, misleading and fools the public in to buying produce that is often of suspect quality and/or origin. We frequently see on the news, or read in the papers, about Mps we trust and vote for who abuse their positions by claiming expenses for which there is no justification. Big business corporations fiddle their tax. Energy companies are ripping us off with unnecessary high prices. I could go on and on, but I’m sure you’re getting the point.

This world is saturated with illegalities and it’s been going on ever since Mankind invented the first flint spear tip. History is littered with one conflict after another, a never ending battle between opposing forces, both sides believing they are right and justified. Morals? What are they? Nothing but an excuse to perform actions which suit the individual. Who is right, who is wrong? What is right, what is wrong? It all depends on one’s social and national attitudes., and yet within those social attitudes there are conflicts concerning what is right and/or wrong.

In my fuel situation I felt justified in driving off, for the moral guilt was on the girl’s side. It was her conscience not mine, which bore the brunt of any repercussions. Basically I’m an honest and trustworthy person, but in this case I felt justified in my actions. The girl should have paid attention and performed her duties more efficiently. The onus was on her, not me. Despite the cameras in the petrol station, there was never any contact with me by the company, which they could have done quite easily through the car number plate, therefore and as is obvious, the company blamed the girl, not me.

End of lecture.

An honest and trustworthy person would have gone back in and pointed out the error and paid what was due so your a honest and trustworthy person to a point
And that point is if you think you can get away with it
That's an opportunist for you

stardesk wrote: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?

Who cares? The garages are owned by Arabs and staffed by illegals.

Original Quill wrote: It works the same way as self-affirmation: subliminally, you are telling yourself that you are not the person whom you admire and respect, so that you build up an internal conflict that works against your self-esteem.

i know this sounds a bit ....strange
i admire the principles of a Starfleet officer and the code of conduct that the fictional tv program characters adhere to
And i try to uphold those ideals in the real world because i realize if we all had the same attitude as SD this world would be far more fucked than it already is

live long and prosper

Stooo wrote:

stardesk wrote: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?

Who cares? The garages are owned by Arabs and staffed by illegals.

Good evening Stooo.

I love your flag of Cornwall avatar.

Original Quill wrote:I think y'all have missed the point.  It doesn't matter what the MPs do, or what the wealthy capitalist does, or even the moral dilemma of the girl clerk.  You behave morally because you believe it is right.

A young man was walking out of a hotel.  As he opened the door he noticed a young woman behind him and stepped aside to allow her to exit first.

"You don't need to hold the door just because I'm a lady," flipped the girl, trying to score feminist snaps.

"I didn't do it because you are a lady," said the young man.  "I did it because I am a gentleman."

Each and every time you do something that is dishonest, or wrong in any way, you drive deep down in your own psyche that you are the kind of a person that can do that kind of thing.  In turn, this gnaws at your own self-esteem.

You are spending little bits of yourself, that way.  Conversely, you behave morally because you don't want to live or be like that.  You are outside of the conversation, Raggs; it's the conversation a person has within himself that counts.

So are you saying that stardesk will have low self esteem because he thinks it's perfectly fine to do what he did?

I couldn't have done that - I wouldn't sleep at night.