quote:Those are not the only conclusions to be drawn from someone twisting your words and using manipulation in what was before a good faith discussion.
Yes, you're just interested in being informative.
I was and still am genuinely interested in discussing the similarities, if any, between the host-guest relationship and theater-patron relationship. I believe there are some similarities, as I've explained. Tom, at least, has actually replied with something other than, "*scowl-punch*I'm not talking to you."
THanks, Shigosei. It was meant, for what it's worth, in a rhetorically manipulative way. It wasn't much at all about a 'gotcha', as my way of expressing the similarities.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, some really good ideas for alternative ways a theater can make money ended up in this thread. Cool.
quote:Keep in mind I believe it is obvious from context that TL intended/intends the label of dishonesty to be a moral judgement.
Assuming it is your intention, here, to correct my own posts, in which I have explicity stated that I do not intend it to be a moral judgement -- wow. Bad form. Please don't presume to correct or clarify my positions. I can do it on my own. Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The movie theaters are trying to assert power they don't rightly possess, and that is the crux of my annoyance with them.
This is common in businesses today. Some stores argue that my entering their premises gives them the rights to search my bags because they have a small sign saying so on their entrance. I refuse to grant them that right, and wish everyone else would, too.
Even worse, places like Wal-Mart insist they have the right to hold me up at the exit of the store to go though items I have already paid for...in other words already own....despite the fact that I often am in a rush.
They have NO legal right to do so, but they often try to threaten people with the calling the police if their customers don't stop and let them paw though their bags.
I worked in retail for years, so I understand about shrink, but I also understand this.
They can call the police if they want, but if they do I will sue them silly. It is an unreasonable search, and as I have not stolen anything if they ARE dumb enough to try and physically stop me they will be found to have violated my rights.
They can ask to see it, but I have the right to say no. If they then believe I am thief, they can call the police....but if they are wrong then the consequences fall on their shoulders.
I just love the fact they try to browbeat you after you have given them your money. Talk about GREAT customer service, huh?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No...I just don't let them stop me. They can call the police if they want to, I could use the cash.
I am polite to them, and simply say "I don't have time to stop right now, sorry." and walk right past them. The only reason they get away with it is that most people are sheep, and don't know they are allowed to say no.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or know they are allowed to say no, and choose not to make an issue of it, particularly with kids in tow.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I'd say Tom has a very good point that when you're in a theater you're a paying customer. I suppose that doesn't preclude you from being a guest as well, but it does change the dynamic. Also, there's generally not a personal connection between you and the theater as there would be with a host. It's not entirely fair to think of businesses as faceless entities that can't be hurt, of course, since actual people are generally hurt when a business suffers. On the other hand, the theater thinks of me as a statistic, not as an individual. What are the duties of a host to a guest, and does the theater perform them?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would totally pay a surcharge to be allowed to bring in my own food. They're not getting my money for food right now, but if they did that they'd get my money.
I would also probably go for a food court, assuming the food court prices were reasonably comparable to the prices of the same chain at other (normal) locations, not way inflated like at the airport or (sometimes) the mall. Subway in the movie theater would be teh awesome. I love a sandwich with my movie.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me the question is not a question of respect for host or customer, it is a simple question of private property rights.
Do you think that property owners have the right to establish rules, terms and conditions under which others may use their property? Is that right unlimited, or limited only to specific sorts of rules?
Should people feel a moral or ethical obligations to respect other peoples property rights?
For example, if you were living in a rented house and the rental contract specified no pets and no smoking, would you consider it a moral obligation to follow those rules?
Would you consider failure to disclose the fact that you were keeping a dog in the house dishonest?
I own a house which I currently rent out. While I generally disagree with an expansive definition of property rights, I think it is absolutely within my rights as owner of the home to prohibit pets and smoking on the premise. I know from experience that those activities cost me money. If the renters are keeping pets or smoking in the house, they are cheating me. The price I agreed to when I rented the house was based on those restrictions. I would have charged more if I believed there would be pets in the house or smoking to cover the extra insurance costs and the extra damages that would likely be done to the house.
Now I agree that I do not have the right to make certain restrictions even though the property is mine. As a society we have agreed that I don't have the right to specify "no Blacks" or "no Jews" on the premise. I don't have the right to specify that the renters not say prayers in my house or not read PlayBoy in my house. Nonetheless, I think I do have some rights as owner of the house to restrict activities done in the house even by "paying customers".
So now this is my question, why is prohibiting outside food in a theater beyond reasonable rights of a private property owner?
Not only does bringing your own food cut into the theater's or amusment park's business, it costs them at least a little. It costs them money to clean up after spilled pop and crumbs. It costs them money to pick up the litter and even to empty the trash cans. Certainly a part (even though its likely a very small part) of what you pay for when you buy the popcorn at the theater is the person who sweeps the theater. I can't see any reason why it isn't within their rights as property owners to prohibit outside food on their premises.
If its a question of whether or not "no outside food" was clearly communicated in the contract made when the tickets were purchased, then there is a valid objection. But once that restriction has been clearly communicated, people do have a moral obligation to respect the rights of the property owner.
When we claim one person has certain "rights", it naturally implies a moral obligation on the part of others to respect that right.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, if you were living in a rented house and the rental contract specified no pets and no smoking, would you consider it a moral obligation to follow those rules?
Yes, but not because they are rules, but because they are obligations of contract.
quote:Would you consider failure to disclose the fact that you were keeping a dog in the house dishonest?
No, the failure to disclose would not be dishonest. But that person would be breaking their word by having the dog there at all - which itself is dishonest.
quote:So now this is my question, why is prohibiting outside food in a theater beyond reasonable rights of a private property owner?
...
If its a question of whether or not "no outside food" was clearly communicated in the contract made when the tickets were purchased, then there is a valid objection. But once that restriction has been clearly communicated, people do have a moral obligation to respect the rights of the property owner.
The question is whether the customers have agreed to it. And the means of communicating that restriction seems to be tiny signs plus some expectation that everyone knows that it's not allowed.
It might seem like a technicality, but we as a society have established a host of rules concerning whether a contract is created. Theaters - and business owners in general - use those rules constantly to avoid having contractual obligations when it suits them. Under those circumstances, I do not extend to them the far more generous interpretation of whether I've made a commitment to someone that I have for non-business relationships.
If they want to ask me to sign something saying I agree not to bring in food, I'll honor it. There are other ways of contract formation I might decide impose that obligation on me. But not as it exists at any theater I've been to.
The right they retain is to ask me to leave. They do not have the right to expect me to follow heir "rules" about what I eat.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: To me the question is not a question of respect for host or customer, it is a simple question of private property rights.
Do you think that property owners have the right to establish rules, terms and conditions under which others may use their property? Is that right unlimited, or limited only to specific sorts of rules?
Should people feel a moral or ethical obligations to respect other peoples property rights?
For example, if you were living in a rented house and the rental contract specified no pets and no smoking, would you consider it a moral obligation to follow those rules?
Would you consider failure to disclose the fact that you were keeping a dog in the house dishonest?
I own a house which I currently rent out. While I generally disagree with an expansive definition of property rights, I think it is absolutely within my rights as owner of the home to prohibit pets and smoking on the premise. I know from experience that those activities cost me money. If the renters are keeping pets or smoking in the house, they are cheating me. The price I agreed to when I rented the house was based on those restrictions. I would have charged more if I believed there would be pets in the house or smoking to cover the extra insurance costs and the extra damages that would likely be done to the house.
Now I agree that I do not have the right to make certain restrictions even though the property is mine. As a society we have agreed that I don't have the right to specify "no Blacks" or "no Jews" on the premise. I don't have the right to specify that the renters not say prayers in my house or not read PlayBoy in my house. Nonetheless, I think I do have some rights as owner of the house to restrict activities done in the house even by "paying customers".
So now this is my question, why is prohibiting outside food in a theater beyond reasonable rights of a private property owner?
Not only does bringing your own food cut into the theater's or amusment park's business, it costs them at least a little. It costs them money to clean up after spilled pop and crumbs. It costs them money to pick up the litter and even to empty the trash cans. Certainly a part (even though its likely a very small part) of what you pay for when you buy the popcorn at the theater is the person who sweeps the theater. I can't see any reason why it isn't within their rights as property owners to prohibit outside food on their premises.
If its a question of whether or not "no outside food" was clearly communicated in the contract made when the tickets were purchased, then there is a valid objection. But once that restriction has been clearly communicated, people do have a moral obligation to respect the rights of the property owner.
When we claim one person has certain "rights", it naturally implies a moral obligation on the part of others to respect that right.
This is a post I can absolutely agree with.
And, like kq, I would probably happily pay a small fee (up to about 5$, probably) to be able to eat and drink what I want in the theatre, even though I've already paid for it once. Using this business model, I bet they'd actually increase revenue. People who want popcorn and snacks will still buy it (and not have to pay the outside-food fee), and those who wouldn't buy food anyway will pay the fee. People will still try to sneak food in, but it would probably reduce the number at least somewhat.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: For example, if you were living in a rented house and the rental contract specified no pets and no smoking, would you consider it a moral obligation to follow those rules? Yes, but not because they are rules, but because they are obligations of contract.
So what you are saying is that if I were renting without a formal contract, they wouldn't have any ethical obligation to follow my no pets no smoking rule. They wouldn't have any moral obligation to tell me about the new puppy they moved into the house because it was just my rule and not a legally binding contract that they had signed.
Either I have certain "rights" as a private property owner to make rules about what is done on my property or I don't. Either you respect my rights or you don't. Whether we have made a legally binding contract is a side issue.
Does the property owner have an inherent right to restrict what customers can bring onto the premises or does this right only exist if established by legally binding contract? If the property owner has clearly communicated the terms under which he has agreed to allow you to use the property, how can you claim you have no ethical obligation to respect his property rights simply because a legal obligation has not yet been established?
In the many many cases in which there are no laws against lying, do you still have an moral obligation to be honest?
[ July 29, 2008, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what you are saying is that if I were renting without a formal contract, they wouldn't have any ethical obligation to follow my no pets no smoking rule.
You can't rent without a formal contract. Not all contracts are written. If you said, "No smoking and no pets, it's $1200 a month" and they said, "OK," then a formal contract exists. The bare minimum required to be communicated in most states is the address of the property and the rent (an amount per period). The law will fill in the rest, but if there is agreement on those points, a contract (technically, a leasehold, but "contract" is precise enough in this context) exists. It's not enforceable beyond month-to-month in most states, but it's still a contract.
And if you didn't say "no pets" before the finalization of the agreement, then you have no right to impose those rules.
quote:Either I have certain "rights" as a private property owner to make rules about what is done on my property or I don't. Either you respect my rights or you don't. Whether we have made a legally binding contract is a side issue.
Your rights in this regard don't extend beyond the parameters of the rental contract. The "rules" you establish are either part of the contract or not - and if they're not, then your trying to impose them is unethical.
Remember, a contract can exist without a signed piece of paper or even spoken words.
quote:If the property owner has clearly communicated the terms under which he has agreed to allow you to use the property, how can you claim you have no ethical obligation to respect his property rights simply because a legal obligation has not yet been established?
If he has clearly communicated those terms, and I have agreed to them (which could happen without any words, just by accepting the keys to the place after he says "no pets, $1200 a month"), then a contract exists.
quote:In the many many cases in which there are no laws against lying, do you still have an moral obligation to be honest?
Yes, as a cursory examination of my previous post would have shown.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL: I do not post to these forums for your approval of my "form." As for your post regarding dishonesty and whether you intended it as a label of moral judgement, let me simply echo Dagonee's words that I find it hard to believe that you made the distinction with a "straight face (or keyboard ...".
I think thats enough said on that.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If he has clearly communicated those terms, and I have agreed to them (which could happen without any words, just by accepting the keys to the place after he says "no pets, $1200 a month"), then a contract exists.
Exactly how does that differ from a movie theater that says, $8 and no outside food? Wouldn't it be considered a contract just because you traded the $8 for the ticket?
Like I said, if you honestly didn't know there was no outside food, there would be nothing dishonest about taking it into the theater. But once you know, it is dishonest to keep sneaking it in. You have a right not to reveal the contents or your bag but you still have an ethical obligation not to have food in the bag if it is against the rules.
If my renter had never read or had perhaps forgotten the line in our contract saying "no pets" and got a new puppy -- it would be a breach of contract but not necessarily unethical. What I'd call an honest mistake. But once I pointed out the no pets policy in the contract, it would be unethical and dishonest for the renter to continue keeping the dog on the premises unless we modified our original contract.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't go so far as dishonest about sneaking it in, just impolite, if the theater has made such policy clearly known.
And I agree that doesn't give them a right to search bags. I do think it is fair warning about the potential for being kicked out if they see you doing it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, as a cursory examination of my previous post would have shown.
Yes, I appreciate this about you. Perhaps thats one of the reasons I asked this rhetorical questions.
I'm told one should never ask a rhetorical question unless one also provides the answer. I should have followed that practice.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In truth, I think the theaters probably hurt their profit by banning outside food. It's a policy that probably seems to be obvious to theater managers, since outside food competes with higher priced concessions food. But the question is: What sort of people are the people who sneak in food?
I would think that they are not splurgers. They are people who are worried enough about costs to bother sneaking in food. Therefore, I suspect their reaction to not being allowed to bring food will be either (1) to simply not eat anything in the theater at all, or (2) to stop going to the theater.
If "food sneakers" react to the ban by no longer attending the theater, rather than buying concessions instead, then the theater loses money on the ban.
My guess is the most profitable approach is to have a "no outside food" rule, but then never bother to enforce it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A contract never has to specify everything that might be prohibited. For example, my rental contracts don't stipulate that the tenants can't burn rubbish in the living room, fill the basement with water for use as a swimming pool, knock out the walls, or raise wolverines in the basement. Yet I presume I would be within my rights to evict them for many lesser offenses even if we had only a verbal contract of "no smoking or pets, $1200 a month."
At what point does something become so widely accepted as reasonable behavior that it no longer needs to be explicitly stated in a contract?
I'm not claiming that the "no outside food rule" meets such a requirement. If it did, there certainly wouldn't be so many people argue that breaking the rule is fine. But there are theater rules that would meet the requirement. For example, if someone stood up in the middle of theater, began screaming and refused to stop -- I'd expect them to be escorted out even though no rule was posted prohibiting this behavior.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A contract never has to specify everything that might be prohibited. For example, my rental contracts don't stipulate that the tenants can't burn rubbish in the living room, fill the basement with water for use as a swimming pool, knock out the walls, or raise wolverines in the basement. Yet I presume I would be within my rights to evict them for many lesser offenses even if we had only a verbal contract of "no smoking or pets, $1200 a month."
If they are destroying property, sure. Having pets or smoking does not automatically imply the destruction of property.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If they are destroying property, sure. Having pets or smoking does not automatically imply the destruction of property.
I think you missed the point. A rental contract is normally presumed to permit people to do certain things in a house and not all of what is allowed or prohibited must be explicitly stated in the contract, much of it is presumed. Since Smoking and keeping pets are things many people normally do in their home, it is necessary for a contract to specifically prohibit these things. But if a contract had to list all the possible things people might do on the premises that would be unacceptable, it would be on infinite length.
"What do you mean that I can't raise wolverines in the basement, the contract says I can't have dogs, cats or other domesticated mammals it says nothing about wolverines?"
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
No, I get the point and I think I answered it. Unless specified otherwise in the contract, no legal activity is implicitly forbidden or grounds for eviction. If you damage property, you are liable for that damage.
quote:"What do you mean that I can't raise wolverines in the basement, the contract says I can't have dogs, cats or other domesticated mammals it says nothing about wolverines?"
You'd probably go to court to determine whether a wolverine in your basement constitutes a "domesticated mammal". The landlord could also attempt to make a case for damage to the property by the wolverine. If, however, the wolverine is legal to own in that municipality, no damage could be demonstrated, and it's determined to not be a "domesticated mammal", then the tenant stays.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt, I think there are exceptions to that. For example, if the contract states the house is rented for "residential use", I could evict tenants for running a business out of the house even if the business was legal. At least in the area where I rent, I don't have to explicitly state that business use is prohibited, that is considered outside the scope of a "residential use".
Furthermore, its nearly irrelevant since most communities have some very broad laws which along with neighborhood covenants that allow me to evict a tenant for keeping too many junk cars in front of the house or failing to cut the lawn enough, even if those aren't stipulated specifically in the ordinance.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, if the contract states the house is rented for "residential use", I could evict tenants for running a business out of the house even if the business was legal.
Right. That's covered by the "Unless specified otherwise in the contract..." part of my post. Matters of interpreting the contract ("residential" = "no businesses", "wolverine" = "domesticated mammal") are a separate issue from what is permitted absent any restrictive language in the contract.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Furthermore, its nearly irrelevant since most communities have some very broad laws which along with neighborhood covenants that allow me to evict a tenant for keeping too many junk cars in front of the house or failing to cut the lawn enough, even if those aren't stipulated specifically in the ordinance.
That varies by state. In some states (like California), it is exceedingly difficult to evict a tenant.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In most states you would have to prove the PRIMARY use of the house was business and not residential to evict them. There are some exceptions.....childcare business for instance....but if they have a home office for selling items on ebay (just as an example) it would not invalidate their rights as tenants.
Unless such activities are specifically restricted/prohibited in the rental agreement, of course.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Dagonee, are you saying that a private property owner, running a business has no (legal) say in what can or can not cross their threshold?
For the sake of my point below, I'm assuming that the "No Food" sign is clearly visible before you enter the business. I have seen such postings in a mall also, where someone might have food from the food court but they don't want messy food coming into the store.
I understand the "no private search" point that you are making. But, doesn't any store or private venue, have the legal right to tell you to keep food out of it? You don't want a toddler spilling red koolaid in an art gallery for example, even if you could hold the parents liable for damages, you still might lose an irreplacable (is it irreplacable or unreplacable or non-replaceble or none of the above?) work of art.
To me, (and I'm not a lawyer) if they actually have this legal right, it *doesn't* matter whether they are selling food inside their property, or some other ware. Because it is their property, they have the right to control what crosses their threshold. You might have to also pay for the priveledge of crossing their threshold (think art gallery, where you have to pay for admission sometimes in order to have the priveledge of seeing the paintings offered for sale) but it still seems that they have the right to control what goes over their threshold.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, Dagonee, are you saying that a private property owner, running a business has no (legal) say in what can or can not cross their threshold?
Not at all. In fact, I've explicitly stated the opposite multiple times now. In fact, I've explicitly stated that theaters have the right to exclude outside food.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok... I missed it... so you agree with their right, but not with the overall reason why they do it?
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with their right. I disagree that the way theaters currently implement their ban creates a moral obligation not to bring food in.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. My objection is to the idea that a business's policies creates moral obligations in others to follow those policies as a general matter.
Those policies can create moral obligations, but something other than their mere existence and publication is required. For example, a request to leave coupled with a ticket refund creates a moral obligation to leave in most circumstances. So does agreement with the policy during contract formation. In each case, something beyond a statement of the policy is needed to create that obligation.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The theater loses an opportunity to take advantage of a market it has worked to create. I can see two parallels to this type of business situation. First is the use of loss leaders in retail stores. Best Buy (for example) will heavily advertise cheap merchandise (DVDs, electronics) that are below normal prices. They make little to no profit on these items but by having them for sale, they bring customers into their stores which leads to increased sales of other merchandise which is not marked down and does turn a profit for the store. There is no deception in the fact that the rest of Best Buy's stock is not as cheap as the specific merchandise they advertised. Nor is the customer obligated to purchase other items in order to offset the store's loss on the discounted items. The store has just created a favorable position for itself by getting more people to walk in. It also takes the risk that the customers buying the discounted items will not buy anything else. That's just a business decision to be made. What would be the equivalent of cheating (to bring this around to the movie theater example) is if another electronics/DVD/CD vendor had set up shop within Best Buy to take advantage of the market (customers in the store, intending to spend money) that Best Buy had worked to create buy sacrificing profits on a few items. (On a side note, simply because some people on buy on sale and others do not, it is not unfair to those who do not buy on sale, even if it is the profits from their purchases that pay for the discounts on other purchases. Everyone has the same opportunities and makes their own decisions.)
I think your analogy fails. A person can buy sale items at Best Buy and then go to another store to buy the other items they want. If Best Buy marks some items down to bring in customers and then marks up other items to compensate, people don't have to buy those other items or go without. They can simply go to a store that offers lower prices.
I worked at Best Buy for awhile as well as a grocery store, a tourist shop, Target, Barnes & Noble and as a manager with two video store chains, so I have pretty extensive experience in retail.
The thing about movie theaters in contrast to these other outlets is that the movie theater doesn't make any money on it's primary service/product.
The video stores made money on video rentals (granted, they made a much higher percentage on concessions) but they also offered new movies for sale at cost or even for a small loss. They did this, as has been pointed out, to entice customers who were looking to buy movies, as opposed to rent them, to still visit the store. While there, they might also rent a film or purchase a gift card or candy.
So a retailer (video, grocery, electronics, etc. store) will offer products that have small to no profit margins to encourage customers to buy more overall at their establishment. However, in most cases, these products are not the sole primary service/product offered.
In the movie theater's case, it's primary service/product provides them with little to no revenue. To make up for this they radically inflate the prices of their concessions.
I think the idea of fair value for concessions would carry some weight in a legal setting were customers to try to take action in a way other than sneaking in their own food. I'm fairly confident none of the theater owners would ever want that to happen, whether they would win or not. But despite the regular complaints I'm sure theater workers receive from customers, I've not heard of anything like that being discussed among movie-goers.
Personally, I just never buy any concessions.
I liked some of the alternative business models Noemon posted. The thing is, movie theaters are competing not just against other things to do, but video stores, Netflix, etc., especially as home theaters become more affordable (even just the impending switch to all HD broadcasts will improve the overall standard of the basic home television).
I think if the economy continues to struggle we may see some alternative business models begin to be implemented in theater chains (as well as other retail chains in general).
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my points above is that theaters are hardly the only venue who seem to think their policies override their patron's rights, simply because they say it does.
I would not sneak into a movie, but I don't have an issue with taking my own food into a movie.
There was a really good theater chain that opened up in MI just as I moved away....I forget the chain name though, I just remember it was great in 1988. They had god snacks at a good price, and I bought food there rather than brining it in. I don't CARE what They say I am buying...all I am paying for is the movie.
Paying for that is more than a lot of people do these days. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would not sneak into a movie, but I don't have an issue with taking my own food into a movie.
Even if the theater says, "We ask that you don't eat outside food in our theaters," without having any sort of enforcement that overrides an individual's rights against unlawful searches?
Frankly that baffles the hell out of me. Why do you have some sort of right to eat whatever you like while renting their seat, if you when you rent it you're agreeing not to do so?
And despite not having big clear signs up, everyone is agreeing not to. That's why we sneak food into movie theaters, and don't bring a cooler.
quote:I don't CARE what They say I am buying...all I am paying for is the movie.
Paying for that is more than a lot of people do these days. [Smile]
The movie you pay to watch doesn't get up there by magic. And what does the second sentence have to do with anything?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: They had god snacks at a good price, and I bought food there rather than brining it in.
Wait--are we talking about communion wafers here, or are we talking about ambrosia (and if it's the latter, do they have nectar on tap)?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wanted to comment on something back on the beginning of the first page but got caught up in the movie theater thing. I thought Samp's post on little white lies was interesting. On one hand, I wonder what life would be like if literally no one lied and we always told the truth 100% of the time. I use lies that have no real consequence all the time, like when someone asks me if something bothers me and I say no when it does to be polite, or I lie if someone asks me if I want to do something and I say no but fudge the reason why. Lies like that are like grease on the skids of life. I don't think they are necessary for a functional society, but I think they're mostly harmless enough and they make nearly everyone happier. I like honesty, and sometimes I think lying like that can actually be harmful, though the only specific instances I can think of involve romantic relationships and how lies can actually lead to a lot of disappointment and pain down the road. But I consider that a separate category.
Read "The Truth Machine" by James L Halperin.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hated when I went to a concert (base price of all tickets in excess of $100), and everyone was thoroughly searched on the way in (for food). My dad had to throw away the (disposable) plastic water bottle that he regularly reused for tap water. They cited "safety" reasons.
So why oh why didn't they find the pot that the people in front of us smoked during the concert? That certainly wrecked the show for me.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: They had god snacks at a good price, and I bought food there rather than brining it in.
Wait--are we talking about communion wafers here, or are we talking about ambrosia (and if it's the latter, do they have nectar on tap)?
LOL.....darn typo's, and the people who catch them....
Rakeesh, this conversation has talked about the difference between eating food you bring in and simply walking in without paying, as well as what constitutes theft. I was simply saying where the line is drawn for me on this subject.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if the theater says, "We ask that you don't eat outside food in our theaters," without having any sort of enforcement that overrides an individual's rights against unlawful searches?
Actually, if the sign says, "We ask..." then it's a mere request, not an element of an agreement.
quote:And despite not having big clear signs up, everyone is agreeing not to.
Moreover, knowing that this is a theater's preference is NOT the same as agreeing to it - especially when theaters very often do not enforce their preference.
quote: That's why we sneak food into movie theaters, and don't bring a cooler.
Actually, as I've already said at least once, I carry food openly into theaters quite often. I usually carry stuff in they don't sell there, and often that's something with chocolate or ice cream in it. Pockets + ice cream sandwich = teh suxorz.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, if you have a history of calling fellow hatrackers liars when they tell you what they were thinking when they wrote a certain thing, or when they attempt to clarify a certain point they'd gotten across a little wrong-headedly at first -- I'm not aware of it. Or at least I wasn't aware of it until now.
I guess I now have a better idea of what to expect from you, and I will adjust my future interactions with you accordingly.
You don't know what's in my head, and your insistence that I mean what you say I mean, rather than what I say I mean, is just absolutely infuriating... You may consider me to have been successfully trolled. Let's move on with our lives. Good job.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I looked up a description of "Chaotic Good" and I emphatically agree with it. I try to be good, but I don't consider Other People's Rules to create a moral obligation in me. I'll decide if they are good and follow accordingly.
I probably "get away" with a lot as a result, but this does come back to bite me. Mostly because I disagree with parking tickets. The City of Alexandria is harsh. Texas is not. Then again, this is the state that came up with $2000 traffic tickets. Friggin avaricious nanny state.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, OK then Dag, "By purchasing this ticket you agree to...", let's say that sign is up there. I do agree that if the sign says 'request' or 'ask' or something, it's not the same.
I missed where you said you carry food openly into theaters, my mistake. But I think you'll have to agree that you're in a very small minority in that area.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wanted to comment on something back on the beginning of the first page but got caught up in the movie theater thing. I thought Samp's post on little white lies was interesting. On one hand, I wonder what life would be like if literally no one lied and we always told the truth 100% of the time. I use lies that have no real consequence all the time, like when someone asks me if something bothers me and I say no when it does to be polite, or I lie if someone asks me if I want to do something and I say no but fudge the reason why. Lies like that are like grease on the skids of life. I don't think they are necessary for a functional society, but I think they're mostly harmless enough and they make nearly everyone happier. I like honesty, and sometimes I think lying like that can actually be harmful, though the only specific instances I can think of involve romantic relationships and how lies can actually lead to a lot of disappointment and pain down the road. But I consider that a separate category.
Read "The Truth Machine" by James L Halperin.
I just finished reading "The Year of Living Biblically" by A.J. Jacobs. He tried for a year to live literally every single commandment and teaching of the Bible. It drove his wife crazy when he had to be completely honest all the time. He couldn't tell "white lies" to their toddler anymore to get him to do what they wanted, had to tell the complete truth, and the toddler would go into a meltdown. When new friends said they ought to go out sometime, and he had no intention of going, he had to say so and made everyone feel awkward.
I had no idea how much I lied until I read that book.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL, you never explained how you intended it to be taken. Most people consider lying to be immoral so most people will be offended if you call them a liar. This is especially true when you use an unconventional definition of dishonesty (namely, that you can be dishonest without entering into a verbal or written agreement).
Furthermore, your posts seemed hostile towards not just the idea of sneaking food into theaters but also towards people who do so.
Ex:
quote:It goes without saying, I'm sure -- but sneaking in food to movie theaters has basically the same effect as shoplifting; the business has to charge everyone else more to offset the cost of your dishonesty.
I always get aggravated when this subject comes up, because people just flat-out, with no evidence to the contrary, simply refuse to believe the truth. Or they choose to deny it so they can continue to keep up the self-justification.
You did point out that there are exceptions where dishonesty is not necessarily bad but you didn't comment on whether or not those exceptions applied to sneaking food into movie theaters. That would have been an easy way to clear up this nonsense.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I can do it on my own. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Let's move on with our lives. Good job.
