Because (upon rereading the entire thread), he never explicitly states his reason for the asshole label except for
BUT SAINTCAD! THAT’S HIS FIRST POST. MAYBE HE GIVES HIS REASONS IN A LATER POST. #261 - No #265 - No eplanation. Just . . .
#268 - Here we go. Bag checks work towards reducing shoplifting
BUT DOES NOT DOING A FAVOR FOR A NAMELESS CORPORATION MAKE ME RUDE? LET ALONE AN ASSHOLE? According to Magellan? Yes.
IS THIS OPTIONAL? Sure - as long as you don’t want shop at the store.
So let’s continue with this theory that there is a social (but not legal) obligation to help a store reduce shoplifting - even at the cost of person freedom.
He was asked to what degree the search should occur. More specifically, items in the pocket.
Apparently the bag is fair game but the pocket is not. I think everyone agrees that searching a customer’s pockets is not reasonable, but whereas I (and others) maintain the position that searching ANY personal property without cause is unreasonable, Magellan maintains the (apparently) contradictory position that searching the bag is OK and should be mandatory (see above).
DOESN’T MAGELLAN BELIEVE THAT PREVENTING SHOPLIFTING IS A COMPLELLING CORPORATE INTEREST IN JUSTIFYING BAG SEARCHES? Yes (post #290). I asked him why searching a bag is reasonable whereas a purse or pocket is not - even given the likelihood of stolen items being there and not the bag.
His reply?
But this was in reply to my post #524 where I ask
Magellan’s reply?
So apparently I should trust that high-school students can separate their responsibility to maintain the secrecy of the search form their desire to spead information that humiliates/embarrasses a teacher.
BUT WAIT SAINTCAD! Isn’t Magellan’s point #2 specific in that the contents of your bag are not embarrassing or personal? Yes. Then isn’t it contradictory that having embarrassing and/or personal items does not change the social obligation to have your bag checked? Yes.
SAINTCAD, DOESN’T POINT #3 ALSO ALLOW FOR SEARCHES OF PURSES/POCKETS SINCE THEY ARE COMMON WAYS TO SHOPLIFT? Yes.
WHAT ABOUT #3 ALLOWING A CAVITY SEARCH? Stick a TV in your butt and I’ll let you have it.
ANY OTHER CONTRADICTIONS?
In response to
Here is what Mr Righi claims: “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” Michael Righi responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”
“No Thank you” is a polite response to a rude and unnecessary request.
Magellan responds with:
SO ASKING TO SEARCH PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH THE WORD “NEED” IS NOT RUDE AND UNECCESARY BUT SAYING “NO, THANK YOU” MAKES YOU AN ASSHOLE? Congratulations. You now see the truth.
Because it’s a debate site. But when asked repeatedly to explain why a store’s wishes are superior to a customer’s wishes (thus making the customer an asshole for refusing) both you and magellan01 have gone to great effort to REPEATEDLY post that the question was answered. I’ve read through this thread twice. I don’t see where that question was answered. I’ve made an attempt to answer questions posed to me and will continue to do so. I didn’t call anyone lazy or stupid.
I’ve gone to great effort to build a case that the customer’s wishes/policy are equal to the business’s wishes/policy. All the customer did was make a purchase. He was polite when he turned down the request. He was met by 2 employees who prevented him from leaving. The entire incident was driven by the store manager’s inability to understand right from wrong. He was the one being rude. He was the one who illegally detained a customer. He allowed his employee to do the same thing.
Completely new tack
I agree that freedom of expression is an important personal liberty. But . . .
I also have a compelling interest to keep my emotions as positive as possible. So Magellan, I need to have you agree with everything I’ve said in this thread. This will be a minor in convienence to you. I mean, typing “Saint Cad, everything you’ve said is correct” will take less than 20 seconds (5 seconds if you’re a fast typist).
I know that this is voluntary, but think about it. If I allow you to refuse, then only people who agree with me would say that I was correct and people who disagree with me would not comply. What would be the point then of having the policy of having everyone agree with me if only SOME people did it?
But what’s in it for you? Well, if I have a positive attitude, then it is possible (but not guarantied) that I will give you positive comments in the future.
And I hate to bring this up, but it is rude for you to have disagreed with me originally and by doing so, you have created a confrontation. All you have to do is give in to my demand and agree with my now and this confrontation will be over. I would also remind you that your refusal to agree with me is upsetting the others in this thread like Magiver and Compuntual. I certainly hope that you do not make a federal case oout of this and get the Straight Dope mods involved to get me to stop badgering you to slightly give up your rights.
Of course for the reasons I’ve given, if you do not agree with everything I say, you and Mr. Righi will be tied for Asshole of the Year (wait 'til you see the trophy).
Besides the fact that a store’s wishes do not supplant a customer’s I would reiterate a point I made earlier. This is not an equal relationship. Stores exist to serve customers, customers do not exist to shop at stores. It is not a 50/50 relationship. There is a glut of retail stores in most product categories. Because of this stores must spend money to attract customers. In this respect, customers are more valuable to the stores than the stores are to the customer.
Chasing down a paying customer and illegally detaining him is financial suicide. It puts a store in the position of having to pay a greater price for advertisement to overcome the fallout of negative press (which costs nothing).
I’ll tell you what, if you agree to pay me $1,000.00 I will provide you with cites where it my reasoning has been explained beyond, as you claim, Post 251. I’ll even go further and cite where I stated my reasoning, and additionally, more nuanced reasoning as to what would have been an appropriate way someone could fight against this “intrusion” and not be labeled an asshole. So, that’s the deal: $1,000. It only seem right that I get paid to point things out to you that you can’t see for yourself. Now, if you can see them are just posting stuff to stir shit up, that’s another story entirely. Either way, $1,000 can satisfy whatever itch you have.
I just wanted to point out that when another poster pointed out that you would have the same problem buying your porn with your high school student manning the register, but, of course, you ignored such a problem and never responded.
Well, you’ll forgive if I don’t take that as instructive. There are at least two problems that make the analogy offered Illogical. One is that Righi did not have to aver that he agreed with the policy. He could have just complied with it silently. He could have then refused to shop there again, written letters, protested out front, etc. A direct analogy here would be to request of me a silent acquiesence.
The other more obvious one is that it is not alleged the Righi was ever singled out for special consideration: he was treated like every other customer. By making the request of me, and only me, the anaolgy falls on its face. Now, we can open the anaolgy to have everyone on SDMB state agreement with every other poster. But I think even you might be able to see how that might not work so well for a debate forum.
So, you might want to look to people other than** SaintCad** for model examples of logic. Just a thought.
Ummm . . . he didn’t agree with the policy and acted accordingly. If he had agreed with the policy, he would have complied. Secondly, I’m not asking you for you to AGREE with my policy, simply follow it and then go ahead and refuse to post in this thread again. Here, I’ll even write it for you with a protest:
Although I do not agree with Saint Cad’s policy requiring this statement, everything he says in this thread is true.
I am applying this policy to everyone in this thread. It just so happens that you are one of the few disagreeing so I am bringing it to your attention - just as Circuit City brought it to the attention of one of the few customers not complying with their policy.
Two undergrad classes in symbolic logic
One graduate class in mathematical logic
So clearly I have no clue about logical examples.
The problem is that NO analogy will ever satisfy you because it can never be made exactly as the original scenerio.
Well, consider this yet another course in logic that you can then ignore in life:
1)In the Righi situation, he was the only one non-compliant. But he was not the only one they asked a particular behavior of. They treated everyone the same. There’s no litmus test. Here, you are offering a litmus test, i.e., disagreeing (with you), I assume.
2)You compound you’re mistake by acknowledging that there are others, “the few”, who so disagree, but you ask something of me and me alone. That is inconsistent with what the store did. There has been no charge that Righi was singled out for any reason. If I missed it, show it and we can revisit this item.
3)And for the icing on the cake, do you not see that what you ask of me is an extraordinary request, while what was asked of Righi was incidental? For me to comply with your request would undermine the very reason I participate on a debate board—that is to offer my opinion and hear others. Righi was at the store not to specifically make a point about his rights under the law, but to buy a game. He could have easily accomplished his principle objective and shrugged off something so incidental as a peek into his bag. As millions of people do every day. I’m not saying he was required to do so, only that the hurdle presented to him does not go to the heart of his actions, as your request of me does.
I don’t know how the first two statements lead to the third, but at least we’re finally in agreement.
Actually, I’m rather fond of analogies. Apt ones can be illuminating. Inapt ones are worse than useless. Hopefully, you see now that the analogy you offered is riddled with problems. I don’t think we particularly need analogies in this case, but if you would like to go down that road you simply must do better. But I won’t waste much more of my time.
At this point I don’t know what you want. I have about sixty posts in this thread. You cited some, but ignored others that explain both my position and my rationale for it. I checked, it’s there. In more than one place. At this point it seems agreeing to disagree makes the most sense.
All I’m asking you to do is type a sentence.
All you’re asking Righi to do is open a bag.
Yet what I’m asking you to do is extraordinary while what you’re asking Righi to do is not. Despite how you deny or rationalize it, I have proven my point.
You miss the meaning of the word “extraordinary” in this context. Why am I not surprised. And making the analogy more simplistic doesn’t make it any more apt. The fact that you do not realize this is also unsurprising at this point, even though the reasons have been spoon-fed to you.
Yes, you have indeed proven something. But it is not the thing you think.
I agree that name calling is inappropriate as our neighborhood mod has pointed out. I don’t believe either** magellan01** or myself ever maintained that the stores wishes are superior to the customers, so we can’t be expected to explain or justify a position we don’t hold. Correct? That also explains why you’ve read the thread twice and failed to find the answer.
The reason I made the above comment was because catsix was insisting maggellan01 had made certain points by picking certain quotes and ignoring the ones that actually spelled out his reasoning. At some point you have to stop explaining yourself to someone who, for whatever reason, simply misses the point. Especially if that poster has misrepresented the point you’re trying to make.
I’ve expressed my point starting on page two.
page 4
5
There’s more but that should be enough. Everybody concerned made some bad calls. I’m not asserting that the store employees were correct. They weren’t. I don’t believe he should have been arrested. I’m saying that human interaction requires at least two or more participating parties and Mr. Righi had several solutions available and the fact that he purposely avoided a little human communication in order to be technically correct puts him in the “bit of a dick” camp* to me* Some don’t agree and that’s fine but I think both **magellan01 ** have explained ourselves adequately.
Years ago I was at a convienience store in the wee hours of the morning. Evidently I took too much time deciding what junk food to poison myself with and it made the older woman behind the counter nervous. An officer came up and asked me for ID.
“Do I need an ID for shopping for snacks” I asked a little miffed
Here’s a situation that could have escalated into something else but the officer was decent enough to explain that my lingering had made the lady nervous. I understood, and apologized showing him my ID and telling him where I lived. I didn’t see any point in making his job, my experience, or the cashiers any worse by being stubborn. The cashier apologized to me and I told her I understood , made my purchase and went home. A little understanding and human consideration by all three people involved had made the situation defuse.
Righi could have contributed to that in this situation but chose not too, while his siblings were in the car crying. That doesn’t make the CC employees any less wrong. It just means he shares in the responsibility for how it all went down.
Here’s where we disagree. I agree the manager was wrong. I don’t agree that the entire incident was driven by him. The responsibility in human interaction lies with all the parties involved and in this case I think Righi contributed to the escalation by the manner in which he very purposely chose to respond.
And since the bag-search is entirely voluntary, he can also exercise the valid option to say ‘No, thank you.’
When something is a policy that you must comply with, whether you agree to it or not, that policy is no longer voluntary but compulsory.
You fail to acknowledge that there is a third valid option with respect to a voluntary bag search. That option is to say ‘No, thank you’.
Courtesy also dictates that you don’t try to force people t ocomply with a voluntary search.
Because at no point whatsoever does searching his property ever become a matter of anything but his own choice.
The only thing that I think Righi should’ve done differently was get in the car and let his father drive away. If he made a mistake, it was thinking he need to open the door and explain anything to the overzealous Circuit City employees who had no authority whatsoever to search or detain him.
My impression was that there was a point prior to the manager standing in front of the car, and prior to him opening the door to the other employee, that the father could’ve driven away, either by going forward or in reverse.
