things annoy things

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
Ironhide
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: things ThS t I annoy u yo.u
by Ironhide » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:21 pm

Errkal wrote:
Ironhide wrote:GAME once sent me two copies of TLoZ: Twilight Princess but only charged me for one so I kept the spare copy sealed for a few months before selling it for £75 when people were paying silly money for it.

So what you are saying is you are responsible for thier down fall.


I like to think so.

Image
User avatar
Ironhide
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: things ThS t I annoy u yo.u
by Ironhide » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:21 pm

Double post :fp:

Image
User avatar
Death's Head
Member
Joined in 2009

PostRe: RE: Re: things ThS t I annoy u yo.u
by Death's Head » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:32 pm

Errkal wrote:
Ironhide wrote:GAME once sent me two copies of TLoZ: Twilight Princess but only charged me for one so I kept the spare copy sealed for a few months before selling it for £75 when people were paying silly money for it.

So what you are saying is you are responsible for thier down fall.
Actually it was me when I used the hairdryer trick on my launch PS3 and traded it for a slim 320GB model.

Yes?
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: things ThS t I annoy u yo.u
by Rocsteady » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:33 pm

Jenuall wrote:
Rocsteady wrote:Either people in here have never heard of moral relativism or have never done anything wrong in their lives. Taking advantage of a 40 buck package arriving at your door from a multinational that avoids taxes on tens of billions is hardly robbing a granny's priceless jewels.


Yeah, that's not what moral relativism means.

Regardless, Amazon being a company that doesn't operate correctly with regards to tax laws does not justify an individual taking something that doesn't belong to them.

It is. "Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."

Quite obviously it does fit into this context when discussing goods from Amazon or other specific sources.

So you've never done anything as bad as not notifying an incomprehensibly large company with dubious moral practices that a cheap package has mistakenly landed in your house, with no way of notifying the correct recipient?

Image
User avatar
Curls
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: things annoy things
by Curls » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:14 am

I sometimes put the krispy creme donuts in tesco through as regular cheap ones. I am a big big rebel.

User avatar
Fade
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: San Junipero

PostRe: things annoy things
by Fade » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:28 am

People that have no comprehension of how numbers work

"Oh hey, like 30 people in hollywood are being accused of sexual harrassment, I guess I better assume the other 10,000 people that work in hollywood are also sexual deviants"

Like, it's horrible, but are you actually strawberry floating retarded?

Image
User avatar
Rax
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Raxicori

PostRe: things annoy things
by Rax » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:10 am

Her package turned up yesterday, everything worked out just fine.

User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: things ThS t I annoy u yo.u
by Jenuall » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:15 pm

Rocsteady wrote:
Jenuall wrote:
Rocsteady wrote:Either people in here have never heard of moral relativism or have never done anything wrong in their lives. Taking advantage of a 40 buck package arriving at your door from a multinational that avoids taxes on tens of billions is hardly robbing a granny's priceless jewels.


Yeah, that's not what moral relativism means.

Regardless, Amazon being a company that doesn't operate correctly with regards to tax laws does not justify an individual taking something that doesn't belong to them.

It is. "Moral Relativism (or Ethical Relativism) is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."

Quite obviously it does fit into this context when discussing goods from Amazon or other specific sources.


Moral Relativism has several interpretations, but the most common form is the understanding that what person A believes to be moral may not be the same as what person B thinks.

Your comment, or at least how it reads to me (apologies if I have simply misread what you have put), is suggesting that stealing from Amazon is okay because they are a "a multinational that avoids taxes on tens of billions". That in itself is not moral relativism - it's not a mechanism for justifying the morality of one action by contrasting it with the morals of the effected party.

The fact that various people in this thread have disagreed as to whether keeping incorrectly delivered goods from Amazon is the right thing to do is an example of Moral Relativism.

Rocsteady wrote:So you've never done anything as bad as not notifying an incomprehensibly large company with dubious moral practices that a cheap package has mistakenly landed in your house, with no way of notifying the correct recipient?


Now this really is Moral Relativism - what constitutes something that is as bad as this example will differ from person to person. Clearly I think that not taking steps to notify the sender that they have made a mistake is wrong, and yes on the few occasions when I have been delivered someone else letters or parcels I have either returned them (where a return address is given), contacted the sender (where it is obvious who the sender is) or simply put them back in the post box with a "Not known at this address" note on them.

In my judgement the moral practices of the sender are irrelevant - the person being inconvenienced by the mistake is not Amazon who may or may have dubious business practices, but some unknown individual who I have no real choice but to assume is a "Good Person" and therefore should receive the common courtesy of me helping them out a little to be re-united with their package.

What I think is a more interesting question in all of this is how many of the people who are saying it is fine to keep the item and do nothing about the mistake because Amazon are basically evil are actually still buying things from Amazon? If you think their way of operating is morally or ethically dubious then why still do business with them?

Image
User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: things annoy things
by Jenuall » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:18 pm

Fade wrote:People that have no comprehension of how numbers work

"Oh hey, like 30 people in hollywood are being accused of sexual harrassment, I guess I better assume the other 10,000 people that work in hollywood are also sexual deviants"

Like, it's horrible, but are you actually strawberry floating retarded?


Yeah that's crazy.

There are clearly more than 10,000 sexual deviants in Hollywood! :slol:

Image
User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: things annoy things
by Rocsteady » Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:59 pm

That's pretty much all fair enough, won't argue with any of that.

I've actually worked for Amazon and still buy goods from them, the way they worship Bezos is fecking weird. Still wouldn't really feel bad about doing what rax did tbh. It's a drop in the ocean for them and having been on the other side, no one in Amazon gives a strawberry float either. Still doesn't excuse it but whatev

Image
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: things annoy things
by KK » Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:55 am

Someone has put up Christmas decorations in their house down my street.

Image
User avatar
Errkal
Social Sec.
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: things annoy things
by Errkal » Sun Nov 12, 2017 12:02 pm

KK wrote:Someone has put up Christmas decorations in their house down my street.

Burn it down, the cops will understand

User avatar
Ironhide
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: things annoy things
by Ironhide » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:51 pm

KK wrote:Someone has put up Christmas decorations in their house down my street.


There's a house near here that had christmas decorations up at the end of the October.

Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: things annoy things
by Moggy » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:58 pm

Ironhide wrote:
KK wrote:Someone has put up Christmas decorations in their house down my street.


There's a house near here that had christmas decorations up at the end of the October.


They’re called Halloween decorations. :roll:

User avatar
Ironhide
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: things annoy things
by Ironhide » Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:11 pm

Moggy wrote:
Ironhide wrote:
KK wrote:Someone has put up Christmas decorations in their house down my street.


There's a house near here that had christmas decorations up at the end of the October.


They’re called Halloween decorations. :roll:


Yes, Halloween Santa and Reindeers.

Image
User avatar
<]:^D
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: things annoy things
by <]:^D » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:36 pm

tbh a fat man squeezing down your chimney and eating your food is pretty creepy

User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: things annoy things
by Jenuall » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:40 pm

Errkal wrote:
KK wrote:Someone has put up Christmas decorations in their house down my street.

Burn it down, the cops will understand


Seconded.

I'm grudgingly accepting of the fact that shops etc. need to start putting out Christmas stuff this early as folks do want to spread their spending out and not have to rush to buy everything in mid-December. However decorations should not be going up in homes until well into December in my opinion.

Image
User avatar
Tomous
I Pissed My Pants
Joined in 2010
AKA: Vampbuster

PostRe: things annoy things
by Tomous » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:43 pm

Jenuall wrote:
Errkal wrote:
KK wrote:Someone has put up Christmas decorations in their house down my street.

Burn it down, the cops will understand


Seconded.

I'm grudgingly accepting of the fact that shops etc. need to start putting out Christmas stuff this early as folks do want to spread their spending out and not have to rush to buy everything in mid-December. However decorations should not be going up in homes until well into December in my opinion.


I think home decorations from 1st December is fine. Aslong as they don't go up on a November date it's all good.

User avatar
Errkal
Social Sec.
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: things annoy things
by Errkal » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:45 pm

Yeah 1st December is fine, before that can strawberry float right off.

User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: things annoy things
by Jenuall » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:49 pm

Yeah, waiting until December 1st would spare people the "burn it down!" response from me, but personally I still think it's a bit early.

I love me some Christmas, like proper love it, but part of that is because it is a nice condensed nugget of joy in the darkest part of the year! Start celebrating it in early November and it loses some of its power for me.

Image

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alvin Flummux, Benzin, Bing [Bot], D_C, Garth, Nook29, PuppetBoy, Return_of_the_STAR, satriales, Ste, Tineash, Yahoo [Bot], Zellery and 50 guests