You’ve said this a couple of dozen times in two threads, and in every case, a majority of posters disagree with your opinion. You can repeat this another few times and see if everyone magically comes round to your view, but seems to me the chances of this happening are not high. What, therefore, is your point in expressing the same discredited opinion over and over again?
Meanwhile, like most people I do give a damn what the law says. The law helps prevent injustices from occurring due to persons applying rules arbitrarily, based on possibly erroneous personal opinions. You have no basis on which to assume that the credit card was used in support of the family. That is purely your opinion, and is not supported by any facts that have been presented in the relevant threads.
I was taught that if you only have one thing to say, you should probably shut the fuck up once you’ve said it.
Ah, another poster getting wrapped around their axle because other people won’t do something the poster feels they have a moral obligation to do. Maybe one day people will realize that all this “moral obligation” talk is completely meaningless, but it looks like it’ll be a good long wait until then.
I can think of plenty of occasions in which a moral person has the obligation to disobey the law. I generally follow the dictates of the law but for pragmatic reasons, not principled ones.
ETA: Shodan, I didn’t pit beowulff over the difference of opinion, but rather for the obtuseness he/she displayed in ignoring multiple reasoned refutations of his arguments. It was as if he were arguing that the Christian canon includes the Gospel of Thomas and would not listen to people who showed much evidence otherwise. Keep it up long enough and you convince me that you’re just stirring up shit.
No one is claiming that beowulff has any obligation other than to argue honestly. People got irritated because of his repeated claims that the credit card company should be allowed to disregard the term of its own contract out of “morality.”
All this is because **beowulff **thinks that retarded, antiquated, sexist system known as Community of Property is actually the more moral and right way of regarding a marriage.
No, marriages shouldn’t reduce individual adults to dependants, and there’s *nothing *wrong with a system that treats each individual as just that - an individual with their own property and responsibilities. Not a subordinate unit of The Hive.
So we agree that you don’t know. Do you have any idea just how fucking stupid you are? Probably not so let me help you. YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID! YOU SHOULD PUNCH YOURSELF IN THE FACE AND APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE HERE FOR OFFENDING US WITH YOUR PRESENCE!
In post #84 of the other thread, beo referred to someone running up CC debt and then “conveniently” dying. Nice. I suppose he would say that it was convenient for my mother that she died of a brain tumor a couple years ago.
Entirely different set of factors would be in play. Not least of which are the assumptions held by both parties to the loan, and the likelihood of an individual being a close enough friend to loan someone money, and at the same time a big enough prick to dun the widow.
This is what’s really got your knickers in a twist, isn’t it? Not that CP is a moral stance, but that it isn’t and you’re stuck by circumstances in the inherent unfairness of it.
If a relative or friend died while owing me money, leaving an impoverished widow and child, I would not only not attempt to dun the widow but would refuse any attempt at repayment. It’s part of my whole “Don’t be a jackass” thing.
Really weird. She has a total of 42 posts, and her latest one was in that thread in March of 2005.
But her profile page says her last activity on the Dope was this past August. So I guess she’s been lurking. I hope we’ve been entertaining her. And that their financial situation has become a bit more tenable during the past five and a half years.
