Bank Error In My Favor

[timwakefield 68]

I read TIL, immediately highlighted, right clicked, googled, and learned the answer to what it stood for

***Edited to include visual. You're the sexy girl, because I just called it.

[mrdannyg 274]

so where are we on the free calendar?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

so where are we on the free calendar?

Free calendars are simply a way for our capitalist oppressors to hold the blinders over our eyes and to ensure that we keep propping up a false government supported by a genetic elite. I know that now.

[vbnautilus 48]

1.I wouldn't use the term morally superior, but on a practical level it is less bad since it tends to be much less damaging.

Why would it be less damaging to steal from more people? Having more victims does not make a crime better. This is very weak.

2.Well an immoral(negative?) act can potentially be moral if you are trying to correct the first immoral act. I already said that both acts were immoral. But the real point of my argument is that I want someone to give me a reason why most people accept one act but not the other. As for the grey area, if you live in a society where theft is legal can that society really expect you not to steal from it? If you believe that moral codes are set by society then I think the answer is no. If you believe in another code then the answer might be different.

I don't even know what two acts we are comparing. You've vaguely referred to some general crime committed by the banks, but I don't know what you're talking about.

3.I'm talking about the fact that our society supports wildly unfair distributions of wealth at birth or inheritance. Those people did nothing to earn that money just like you did nothing to earn the bank error. Why is one stealing and the other not?

I don't believe that you can't see the difference. Either 1) you're really not thinking before you type 2) you're so committed to making some point that you don't care whether you make sense or 3) you have lost a different kind of genetic lottery.Stealing is taking something from someone against their will. Inheritance does not qualify. ( Are you seriously a communist? )

4.The moral choice would be to return it to those who were hurt by the unfair distribution, not your parents. Any morality that can ignore fairness is not a true morality.

And if you force people to do that, that isn't stealing? You seem to be working from the idea that it is morally wrong for one person to have more than another. I don't think anyone is going to share that assumption with you.

5.Any time you take something you didn't earn you are in effect stealing.

No. Everyone note not to give Silent Snow a birthday present this year, since he doesn't want to steal from us.

People who are born wealthy/inherit wealth later are taking far more than their fair share of resources and did not earn them.

See, I thought you were making some moral/ethical argument, but you're really just pushing some political ideology? I didn't initially realize what you were up to since I don't usually read your posts. A system where equal wealth distribution is forced does not maximize human well-being. It is therefore immoral to implement such a system.

In an ideal society everyone would be born with an equal opportunity which includes a fair initial share of resources.

Yeah, let's be real careful that no one ends up taller than anyone else or with better musical talent or sharper vision. NOT FAIR!

In that society "all men are created equal" would be more than just a sick joke. In practice it is impossible to actually create a fair system but we should at least make an attempt to correct the worst extremes. I realize this might sound weird since our society is based on supporting injustice.

It doesn't sound weird, it just sounds stupid.

6.No. I am saying it is not ok. But under our current system there isn't a good reason not to steal from the bank. The solution is to fix society, not encourage stealing from banks.

There isn't a good reason not to steal from the bank....? Let's do this real slowly. It's illegal to take the bank's property. The law says that if I give you something that's mine -- by accident -- you should give it back, because accidents don't transfer ownership. Now surely some laws are unjust and not worth following because some ethical principle supersedes them. Is this an unjust law worth breaking on ethical grounds? Seems to me like a pretty reasonable law. If we are to follow your "reasoning", then since life is unfair and wealth is not evenly distributed, we should all just take whatever we want, whenever we want to. Is that what you do?

[Mercury69 3]

You make Stalin look like Rush Limbaugh.

A $1 bank error is a tragedy; a $6m bank error is a statistic.

[digitalmonkey 929]

If we are to follow your "reasoning", then since life is unfair and wealth is not evenly distributed, we should all just take whatever we want, whenever we want to. Is that what you do?

I don't think anyone said this. I also don't think he claimed his reasoning was universal and applied to all scenarios. I'm sure there are scenarios where your reasoning would be ridiculous.Also:SS said, "Any time you take something you didn't earn you are in effect stealing."You responded, "No. Everyone note not to give Silent Snow a birthday present this year, since he doesn't want to steal from us."I'm not arguing for or against SS's comment, but your response seems to indicate a lack of understanding between "give" and "take".

[vbnautilus 48]

I don't think anyone said this. I also don't think he claimed his reasoning was universal and applied to all scenarios.

Then its up to him to specify exactly how his approval of stealing is limited. He is justifying stealing from a bank because he is unsatisfied with the current distribution of wealth. Why would that be a justification for one instance of stealing and not another? edit: The form of my argument here is reductio ad absurdum. If we take the principle he has advocated seriously, it leads to positions that are untenable.

I'm sure there are scenarios where your reasoning would be ridiculous.

If you want to make the same argument against me, you have to show how my reasoning leads to absurd conclusions. You can't just say "yours probably does too".

[mrdannyg 274]

Also:SS said, "Any time you take something you didn't earn you are in effect stealing."You responded, "No. Everyone note not to give Silent Snow a birthday present this year, since he doesn't want to steal from us."I'm not arguing for or against SS's comment, but your response seems to indicate a lack of understanding between "give" and "take".

Nope. SS uses the word "take" but since he is discussing inheritance, it is clear a better word would be "accept."VB's analogy is fine - the person inheriting is not 'taking', they are being given, by their dead benefactor's estate. If their acceptance is theft, then so would SS's acceptance of a birthday present, or for that matter, anyone being paid a wage that is greater than their contribution. By that logic, the fact that I am currently being paid to make this argument (which is of no benefit to my employer) is stealing.I guess that last one does kind of make sense.

[vbnautilus 48]

Nope. SS uses the word "take" but since he is discussing inheritance, it is clear a better word would be "accept."VB's analogy is fine - the person inheriting is not 'taking', they are being given, by their dead benefactor's estate. If their acceptance is theft, then so would SS's acceptance of a birthday present, or for that matter, anyone being paid a wage that is greater than their contribution. By that logic, the fact that I am currently being paid to make this argument (which is of no benefit to my employer) is stealing.I guess that last one does kind of make sense.

Not to mention that the privilege of being born into a rich family comes long before inheritance. Are wealthy parents not supposed to give their kids money while they are alive? They probably shouldn't let their kids live in their nice houses either. I guess everyone who is born should live in an identical government built house and they can just visit their parents every once in a while. You know, just to make sure there are no government-supported genetic advantages.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

also, ouch: come on man, don't do that

just wanting to make sure you get a chance to be the sexy girl. i'm all about you, baby.

[digitalmonkey 929]

Nope. SS uses the word "take" but since he is discussing inheritance, it is clear a better word would be "accept."VB's analogy is fine - the person inheriting is not 'taking', they are being given, by their dead benefactor's estate. If their acceptance is theft, then so would SS's acceptance of a birthday present, or for that matter, anyone being paid a wage that is greater than their contribution. By that logic, the fact that I am currently being paid to make this argument (which is of no benefit to my employer) is stealing.I guess that last one does kind of make sense.

VB left out the inheritance part when he quoted. Purposely, I'm sure. He's in the Spademan fanclub and they like to mislead...it keeps the arguments going and confuses those with whom they are arguing. Well, HA! I'm already confused so it has no affect on me.Anyway, VB:You seem to be claiming that a man who designs a computer program that accumulates all the penny fractions in an account to help pay for his medical bills is just as guilty as the man who steals $6 million out of one account and uses the money to run off to Mexico with 4 or 5 guidos. I bought a new lawnmower yesterday. When I checkout out, the girl at the cash forgot to scan the protective eyewear (don't forget protective eyewear people). I did not tell her...they were sitting right there in view on the box. She made a mistake and I got a free pair of protective glasses. The alarm sounded when I walked through the security scanners giving her another opportunity to notice the glasses. I turned and she indicated that it was ok for me to walk on. I walked on. Did I steal the glasses?Here are my thoughts:Some would say I did steal the glasses and some would say I didn't. I don't care either way. I had every intention of paying for the glasses and even placed them on the box with the UPC in the proper position. I noticed her mistake, but the cost of the glasses wasn't coming out of her pocket, so I said nothing. I would definitely have pointed them out if it were money out of her pocket. I had absolutely no problem accepting the free glasses with my $300 lawnmower purchase. So while in a normative sense my actions (or lack thereof) may have been immoral, they were moral in a descriptive sense. I live my life based on my morals not on the morals of an ideal moral person.I think vb and SS may be talking about two different things, but....I'm confused.I'm going to mow the lawn now. I'm actually excited. Lame, I know. Oh and here's a pic to make us all feel better about ourselves:And yes, I know the penny-fraction stories are a myth.

[brvheart 1,752]

Not to mention that the privilege of being born into a rich family comes long before inheritance. Are wealthy parents not supposed to give their kids money while they are alive? They probably shouldn't let their kids live in their nice houses either. I guess everyone who is born should live in an identical government built house and they can just visit their parents every once in a while. You know, just to make sure there are no government-supported genetic advantages.

Why should anyone be rich? That money shouldn't belong to that one family. You need to spread that shit around.

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I noticed her mistake, but the cost of the glasses wasn't coming out of her pocket, so I said nothing.

It's ok to steal as long as you can't see the person's face from whom you're stealing from.

[iZuma 764]

just wanting to make sure you get a chance to be the sexy girl. i'm all about you, baby.

you're a forward thinkin' guy!and vb, have you been smoking cigars lately or something?

[vbnautilus 48]

VB left out the inheritance part when he quoted. Purposely, I'm sure. He's in the Spademan fanclub and they like to mislead...it keeps the arguments going and confuses those with whom they are arguing. Well, HA! I'm already confused so it has no affect on me.

I answered every one of his points. That didn't require quoting every single word. I also made an elaboration post about the inheritance issue in post #59. How did I mislead you?

You seem to be claiming that a man who designs a computer program that accumulates all the penny fractions in an account to help pay for his medical bills is just as guilty as the man who steals $6 million out of one account and uses the money to run off to Mexico with 4 or 5 guidos.

You seem to be claiming that if someone steals in order to use the money for medical bills that is A-OK. I really don't get your point. Is it that stealing a large amount at once is worse that stealing a large amount slowly over time? Why would that be?

Some would say I did steal the glasses and some would say I didn't. I don't care either way. I had every intention of paying for the glasses and even placed them on the box with the UPC in the proper position. I noticed her mistake, but the cost of the glasses wasn't coming out of her pocket, so I said nothing. I would definitely have pointed them out if it were money out of her pocket. I had absolutely no problem accepting the free glasses with my $300 lawnmower purchase.

Skel Jell already handled this part. You'll steal, as long as it's not from the cute girl in front of you. Please give us more of your moral wisdom.

So while in a normative sense my actions (or lack thereof) may have been immoral, they were moral in a descriptive sense.

I can't imagine what this distinction is supposed to be.

and vb, have you been smoking cigars lately or something?

[digitalmonkey 929]

It's ok to steal as long as you can't see the person's face from whom you're stealing from.

I think you're going more for "funny" than "accurate"...but I'll respond anyway...I'm not labeling something as ok or not ok because my ok is not necessarily the same as your ok or vb's ok. I'm stating that I have no problem walking out of Lowes or Home Depot (checking receipt...now crossing out wrong store) with glasses I didn't pay for when the loss will be absorbed/unnoticed/written off by a multi-million dollar store. However, if the 18-27 year old chick at the cash was going to have to cover the loss then I would point out her oversight and gladly pay for the glasses. I'm morally corrupt, obv.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

I bought a new lawnmower yesterday. When I checkout out, the girl at the cash forgot to scan the protective eyewear (don't forget protective eyewear people). I did not tell her...they were sitting right there in view on the box. She made a mistake and I got a free pair of protective glasses. The alarm sounded when I walked through the security scanners giving her another opportunity to notice the glasses. I turned and she indicated that it was ok for me to walk on. I walked on. Did I steal the glasses?

Yup that is flat out theft and no different than if would have put them in your pocket and walked out of the store.On the morality scale it's no differenet than if you would have taken the cash from the blind mother's hand who is behind you in the line at the grocery store to pay for your stuff while her and her 17 disabled kids now have to go hungry.Rationalize it any way you want about it only being some big bad corporation but you knowingly took something that you had no right to. My question to you would be why didn't you just take a lawnmower from one of your neighbours if they had an unlocked shed ?

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

I'm stating that I have no problem walking out of Lowes with glasses I didn't pay for when the loss will be absorbed/unnoticed/written off by a multi-million dollar store.

Thanks for the clarification, Kramer.

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm not labeling something as ok or not ok because my ok is not necessarily the same as your ok or vb's ok.

This is especially lame in a conversation about ethics, but if you're gonna go all relativistic on us then there's really no point in going any further. What if in "my OK" it's perfectly fine to murder people for making bad arguments.

I'm stating that I have no problem walking out of Lowes or Home Depot (checking receipt...now crossing out wrong store) with glasses I didn't pay for when the loss will be absorbed/unnoticed/written off by a multi-million dollar store. However, if the 18-27 year old chick at the cash was going to have to cover the loss then I would point out her oversight and gladly pay for the glasses.

So your position comes down to: It's ok to steal as long as the amount you are stealing represents a small portion of the wealth of the person you are stealing from. How small? In other words, how much are you allowed to steal from the multi-million dollar corporation?

I'm morally corrupt, obv.

Now we agree.

[digitalmonkey 929]

You seem to be claiming that if someone steals in order to use the money for medical bills that is A-OK.

Where did I say where it was ok to me? You're claiming both are stealing and seem to be claiming that both are equally wrong. I'm not saying you are incorrect...just that your morals differ from mine. I think one is much more wrong than the other.

Skel Jell already handled this part. You'll steal, as long as it's not from the cute girl in front of you. Please give us more of your moral wisdom.

I never made any claims whatsoever to the wisdom of my morals. They are my morals...wise or not. I have yet to be arrested for anything though. Is this method of filling your argument with inaccuracies and lies in the Spademan Fan Club handbook?

[digitalmonkey 929]

Yup that is flat out theft and no different than if would have put them in your pocket and walked out of the store.On the morality scale it's no differenet than if you would have taken the cash from the blind mother's hand who is behind you in the line at the grocery store to pay for your stuff while her and her 17 disabled kids now have to go hungry.Rationalize it any way you want about it only being some big bad corporation but you knowingly took something that you had no right to. My question to you would be why didn't you just take a lawnmower from one of your neighbours if they had an unlocked shed ?

I did try to take my neighbour's lawnmower, but there was a lock on the shed and breaking locks is against my morals. That's one line I do NOT cross.

[digitalmonkey 929]

This is especially lame in a conversation about ethics, but if you're gonna go all relativistic on us then there's really no point in going any further. What if in "my OK" it's perfectly fine to murder people for making bad arguments. So your position comes down to: It's ok to steal as long as the amount you are stealing represents a small portion of the wealth of the person you are stealing from. How small? In other words, how much are you allowed to steal from the multi-million dollar corporation? Now we agree.

LOLIf murdering someone is morally acceptable to you then you should seriously consider moving to another country.

[digitalmonkey 929]

BTW, the glasses are sublime.

[vbnautilus 48]

Where did I say where it was ok to me? You're claiming both are stealing and seem to be claiming that both are equally wrong. I'm not saying you are incorrect...just that your morals differ from mine. I think one is much more wrong than the other.I never made any claims whatsoever to the wisdom of my morals. They are my morals...wise or not. I have yet to be arrested for anything though. Is this method of filling your argument with inaccuracies and lies in the Spademan Fan Club handbook?

So let me get this straight. You are entering a discussion about whether stealing from a bank is ethical with the following beliefs: 1- there is no objective answer to the question. everyone has their own opinions that are all equally valid. 2- you do not consider yourself a moral personI think you've disqualified yourself from having anything to say about this. I don't really expect you to make very much sense given how you've proceeded here, but if you're going to accuse me of a "lie" or an "inaccuracy" you're going to have to tell me what you think they are and why. This is the third time you've hurled a vague accusation like that without any substantiation. I'm arguing with you in good faith and have not demonstrated any attempt to deceive or mislead here, or in any other argument I've ever had on this board.

[vbnautilus 48]

LOLIf murdering someone is morally acceptable to you then you should seriously consider moving to another country.