posted
I take home unopened soap packets from my hotel rooms. Is this stealing? I don't think so, because I feel like I have paid for them.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that as far as the soap and shampoo from hotels, you do.
That brings to mind another question. My university paper recently had an article about the theft of various products from our campus dining services. One such item was trays, which are obviously reused and owned by the university. However, they also commented on students "stealing" plastic silverware - how is that for an oxymoron - as well as ketchup packets. You are intended to take as many of these as you need per meal. So is it stealing to take more than one for use in your dorm or apartment or house?
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also sneak candy into movie theatres. And I only go to dollar movies, so the candy really would be their only income. I mean, shifting theatres actually harms them less than me sneaking in candy. Maybe. I don't know. On the matter of soda sharing, it's obvious none of you have 3 year olds. Can you spell backwash? Also, I think sodas are poison. Though if I were diabetic or on a special diet, I wouldn't feel bad about sneaking snacks into a theater. I am totally capable of enjoying a movie without snacks as well. So I blame it all on my husband. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like popcorn at movies, but the salt makes me thirsty. And if I have anything to drink, then usually I will have to pee. So usually I do not bother with sneaking anything into movies, although occasionally I will have a soda if it is a short movie.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the matter of soda sharing, it's obvious none of you have 3 year olds.
I share drinks with my two young kids all the time, and I have since long before they were three. I don't do it at fast food joints, because I don't mind paying for us each to get a cup, but if I buy some absurdly overpriced water from the Stop-N-Rob, I certainly don't intend to buy three bottles. We all share one, and the backwash has never bothered me. Cor, on the other hand, is bothered by it. I always just figured she was weird.
-o-
Sneaking soda or food into a movie theater or stadium or amusement park is not stealing, and as far as I'm concerned it's not wrong. I reject their right to tell me I can't bring candy in. That said, I typically don't, but only because they have a better (or rather, different) selection of candy than the Stop-N-Rob does, even if it is overpriced.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: think there's a letter-of-the-law/spirit-of-the-law issue at play.
Pop, I think you're right, insofar as the run of responses here. But that paradigm doesn't really address the, shall we say, Mosaic view of thievery, as an absolute law.
I think Ana Kata's response springs very much from that side of things. If we even so much as feel as if we have 'gotten away with' something (however we justify it), do we at some level make ourselves petty thieves?
I do feel that these issues are important to confront. Important both for the fabric of society (think of how much more you may see drivers run red lights these days! - at least here in Boston) - and for our relationship with our our own selves (and that's without dragging religion into it, too much).
I, like Ana, prefer to be able to stand upright and pure. It's not a matter of pride - it's a matter of not entering onto a slippery slope. That is not to say that I have not done all these things, and worse. But I continue to grow into my own clear sense of principle.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To those who feel that taking advantage of free refills is stealing:
Say you go to a yard sale and find an object being sold for much less than it's worth. Do you not buy it? If not, why? If you do, does it put you on the slippery slope? Does the seller not also have an obligation to be aware?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frisco, the difference is that the definition of a yard sale IS "sale to get rid of things at rock-bottom prices."
Now, if you mean something that they don't realize is a priceless antique, but I do -- then yes, I would feel that I had an obligation to tell them. And I like to think that I would actually do so. Not that it's likely to come up. I wouldn't know a priceless antique if it walked up and bit me. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Should restaurants be required to tell you that they've already factored the cost of refills into your meal and raised prices accordingly, whether or not you take advantage of the bottomless drink?
rivka, the definition of fast food is "get them into the store with ads, then take advantage of the ever-growing caffeine and junk food addiction in order to sell a product at ridiculous markups". Sure, it's a free market...but if they have that right, I think I have the right to take advantage of the fact that they're selling me an essentially unlimited amount of soda for the low, low price of $1.79. *grin*
posted
If it's a self serve soda fountan, then you're supposed to get free refils. If it's behind the counter, then ask, it's probably still free.
Posts: 4174 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get free refills, though. I just don't get them for more people than me. One cup per customer, unlimited refills per cup, I mean. If they don't post a sign and drinks are self-serve, then I do assume the refills are free. I never thought to ask.
Traffic signs are not moral decisions for me, though. I mean I feel fine about running a light when the vehicle loop detector is bad and they make you wait forever when no cars are coming. Obviously I look very carefully first. I am bad about speeding, too, though I go slow if there's any chance of children or animals around or workers. I try to keep it slow enough that I won't get a ticket, as well. I happened to get 3 within a short period of time once when I was driving an awful lot for work and it made me afraid I might lose my license. Imagine being unable to drive! That would be bad! Ever since then I did get in the habit of being careful to speed only in a cautious fashion. Stop signs when nobody is there are really slow down and yield signs to me. The traffic is nuts in my town, though. I don't know whether this is any excuse. Saudade and Andrei cower in the backseat when I drive them around. <laughs>
Here's another thing I think is a sort of fluid dynamics problem and not a moral problem. On the highway when the signs say "Left Lane Closed 2 miles" I stay in the left lane until the last possible moment, then move over. This is by far the fastest strategy, especially if traffic is very backed up. It's legal and it's available to any driver who wants to take advantage of it. Many people get over immediately, though, and act like you're being a jerk if you don't too. Why? Traffic moves faster in two lanes merging to one than in one lane only. Why not take advantage of all the road that the work crew has left available to us?
[ October 24, 2003, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I used to do that too, AK, but I stopped because it drives Cor crazy. But it infuriates me to instead wait behind the sheep who let other people in. My feeling is that people who've been waiting longer ought to end up in front, but since people are going to let in johnny-come-latelies from the merging lane anyway, then they might as well let me in. I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.
But I don't think this is at all the same kind of moral issue.
Also, while I am a safe driver, I am somewhat on the aggressive side of safe--so don't get me started on driving habits! (Although it doesn't sound like I can hold a candle to you!)
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another area people seem to have trouble deciding whether it's theft or not is stealing time from your employer. If my boss is paying me then I'm paid me to work not come on hatrack, or chat on the phone, or have visitors etc. I'm always amazed at how many people visit me at work and get grumpy when I don't want to stand around chatting to them. Why doesn't it occur to them I'm not there because it's convienant for them?
Posts: 141 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't let people in, either, if I see that they had a chance to get in the lane ahead of time. Presuming upon people's politeness for your personal gain is a little...I don't know the right word to use. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
mack--no, but the guy in front of you will!
I personally don't have a dilemma with the work thing. I am not paid by the hour, I am paid to complete certain tasks, which I complete. I spend time on Hatrack before the start of the day, during lunch, and after school, mostly. On (frequent) occasions, I also steal a few minutes during the six minutes of passing time (my short snarky posts) and during my planning period. But the fact is that I put in far, far more than forty hours a week in legitimate work, so I use Hatrack sometimes, especially when I am working at night as I am right now, to pace myself. Grade 10 quizzes, Hatrack, write lesson plans, Hatrack, etc. I almost never post when I have students in the room, because I virtually never assign seatwork. So I feel like my employers are getting what they paid for (and more!) from me.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see it as politeness. It certainly isn't polite to the people behind them.
-o-
It's unfair that these people will let in drivers who have not been waiting as long, but I didn't create the unfairness. Taking from me the "politeness" of these drivers just to erase some perceived injustice . . . it seems . . . I dunno. Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't. I actually appreciate a certain amount of assertiveness in other drivers. If somebody doesn't want to let me in, I won't generally force my way in. The only exception to this is if I have a legitimate reason to be merging where I am, like I just came on an on-ramp, and somebody decides to be a jerk.
And I am psychotic enough to keep you from muscling in in front of me if I decide you are a jerk, even at the risk of getting hit. I suspect mack would be too. You don't want to mess with us crazy people when we're behind the wheel!
posted
See, I wish there were more people like mack and Iccy on the road. I enjoy that sort of challenge.
And mack...maybe you forgot to read the warning sticker on your engine. "Violently explodes upon impact". Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I told my therapist I'd say if I was ever attacked in any way, "Go ahead and mess with me you ******, I've been suicidal for months."
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me cars on the highway are like water in a pipe. You go where there is the lowest pressure. It's not a choice, you just obey the laws of fluid dynamics.
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I am not a thief. ak, I thought I was the only who thought about traffic in terms of fluid dynamics and waves! On I-285 in Atlanta during morning rush hour there is a "standing wave" or node at several places, where the cars back up in the same way every day, similar to what's known as "hydralic damming." By adroit lane changes I avoided a good part of the traffic after I figured out the pattern. Alas, afternoon rush hour seemed more unpredictable.
Also, groups of cars resemble waves in their patterns of starting and stopping, in freeway traffic as well as at traffic lights.
Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As implied above, it is not thievery. If, in some case, it is wrong, it falls under abuse of the statute, not thievery. and to answer the question "Is "theft" more acceptable if it's only for $1.49?" Well, no, wrong is wrong, but to compare somebody who routinely drives 7mph over the speed limit because they're always in a hurry to a murderer is ludicrous, I'm sure you'll agree. And, since we live in a country where we more or less believe in taking care of the hungry and the poor, I don't think it at all wrong for us college kids to press the rules a bit and bum food. It'd be a little childish if say, 5 people came in a drunk from the same cup- but nothing more, I think.
Now if I go in with a five gallon bucket and fill up on soda pop- clearly violating the unwritten statute of trust, then yes, it's out and out robbery.
It's basically the case of the white lie. A victimless lie is not a lie, and a victimless crime is not a crime. The restauraunt said all you can drink, so they should stand by it to a degree. More importantly, they can afford it(see above remark about taking care of the hungry and poor). Now if a well-enough-fed college kid sees an abandoned Mcdonald's meal on a park bench, grabs it with four fingers as a homeless guy is grabbing it with two, and the homeless guy jerks it away from him, and the college kid beats the cr*p out of him and takes it - THEN THAT'S STEALINGPosts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some places do have signs spelling out one cup per customer, and no soda in water cups.
But even without the sign, using a 5 gallon bucket (if anyone actually had the cajones to try it) to get soda is an obvious attempt to get more than you paid for. As such it is morally theft, if perhaps not legally theft. Would it be ok to use the same bucket at an all-you-can-eat place, Frisco?
Sharing a cup falls more into a grey area, IMHO.
Posts: 327 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: How can an unwritten law be "out and out robbery"?
Uh, go figure. If the government is anarchy, and there are no laws, I beg to differ with you if you think you can take my money, against my will, for a non-legitimate purpose, and not be doing robbery.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do people feel about this: When my friends and I got to a movie we routinely pool our money in order to get a large drink (two if we can't decide what we want) and a medium sized popcorn. The popcorn is refillable, and we generally go though 2 or 3 bags in the course of the movie. Is this stealing? Keep in mind that if we didn't pool our money and do this we wouldn't get anything, because none of us alone has enough money to buy even one bag of popcorn. Also, if you bought the popcorn yourself, and then one of your friends asked for a handful, you'd give it to them, wouldn't you? You wouldn't say, "No, I can't do that, that woudl be stealing from the theater." Similarly, if you went to a fast food place, and one of you only had enough money for a sandwich, but was really thirsty, you can't tell me you wouldn't give them a drink from yours because it would be stealing. Personally, I think that that would be much worse.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay: sharing your small soda a number of times. Okay: speeding within reasonable limits. Okay: bid-sniping on eBay. Okay: buying an item on considerable discount, or stacking rebates.
Less okay: sneaking food into a theater. Less okay: disobeying a stoplight because it seems mis-timed. Less okay: purchasing a obviously mis-identified and extremely valuable object from an estate sale or the like. Less okay: using free lemons to make lemonade. Less okay: in restaurants (like Arby's) that give free pickles, taking several hundred pickles and having them for lunch.
Even less okay: continuing to drive in the left lane when you know it's going to close, thereby becoming one of those people who force traffic to stop when they desperately attempt to merge at the end of the lane -- thus slowing down all the people who courteously moved over, but gaining a few extra minutes of efficiency for yourself at their cost. Even less okay: taking toilet paper and/or condiment packets from restaurants to use in your home.
posted
If you ever find yourself saying "they can afford it", about the person on the other side of the transaction, then this is a big red flag. This is a huge no no. It's not other people's wallets with which you are allowed to be generous, but only your own. When you think to yourself, "I can afford it", this is the right way.
It's just like, "what are friends for?". <laughs> It's not something you say to your friends to explain to them why they should do more for you, drive you everywhere and buy you food. It's what you say when your friends are being effusively grateful for the kindnesses and gifts of friendship that you bestow upon them.
About the lane closure problem, I'm speaking of the times when the traffic is at a near standstill, and there is a long line of cars in the right lane, say, and the left lane is open because everyone has moved out of that lane because it's about to close. It's actually faster for everyone involved if people merge together right at the end rather than two miles back.
The reason the traffic slows and stops is that a restriction creates a higher pressure. The longer distance that restriction is in effect, the higher the pressure generated and the more tendency there is for cars to jam up. So if we add the two miles between the sign and the actual traffic barrels to the length of that restriction, we are causing MORE traffic jam up and not less. Traffic will be slowed the least if the restriction is made as short as possible. So people should stay in both lanes until very near the end, then merge together.
What is the sense of not taking advantage of all the tarmac you are given? The interstate downtown has three or four lanes and at the edge of town it has only two. Should we all avoid the other two lanes in town just because some miles down the road those lanes will end? Of course not, that would make traffic much slower. We use all the pavement we are given while we have it, then make do with less when we must.
[ October 25, 2003, 11:51 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I don't know about other states, but in Minnesota it is illegal for the theater to forbid people bringing in food if they sell comparable food. The theaters won't tell you this, but my sister worked at one in high school and the employees were told that they actually couldn't stop people from bringing their own food.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"When you think to yourself, 'I can afford it,' this is the right way."
There's a difference between honesty, generosity, and masochism, Anne Kate. If a business has made the decision to permit free refills, rest assured that they continue to implement this decision because -- even with people sharing those refills -- it makes good business sense.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just pointing out that whenever you say to yourself, "they can afford it", you are making a judgement call in the direction of generosity with somebody else's money. Be generous, if you want, with your own money. This is generosity. Being generous to yourself with someone else's money is not called generosity. It's called something else.
[ October 25, 2003, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posts: 968 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was mentioning this thread to my husband last night, and he said sneaking food in is okay because they overcharge for theirs and you're not actually taking anything, but sharing soda is not okay because no matter how high the profit margin it still costs something.
In my mind they are the same because in both cases you are depriving them the right to overcharge you. But I guess with the soda, you are doing it using their materials whereas with movie snacks you are using your own. I guess I'll avoid doing either.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
