Most good natured 'prank' I've ever seen.

If you can’t watch youtube videos at work… The guy rings up the fast food store and says there are two undercover agents dressed as homeless men out on the pavement. But they have been there for a while so they are going to need some refreshment and food. He says he can’t give it to them because he’ll blow his/their cover.

The fast food guy agrees and takes out food and coffee to these real homeless men!

What other good natured pranks have you seen/heard of?

Wasn’t there a shitstorm of a thread about this very incident? My memory is failing me. I for one think it was pretty cool.

I don’t see anything good-natured about lying, cheating, and taking advantage of another person’s good nature and naïveté. Quite the reverse.

Some homeless people got a free meal and a drink.

It may not be much but it’s more than most people would do for them.

Edit: In no way was someone’s good nature taken advantage of. The fast food staff wouldn’t normally have given the food. They were tricked into it by the guy in the car. The ‘loser’ in this is the fast food chain. If the servant got a bollocking for doing it then that says more about his manager than him. And I doubt it wouldn’t have gone unnoticed.

What’s more: one would hope that this encouraged more people to feed homeless people in this way (though I doubt it)

Another good natured prank would be to break into a house and steal all the food for homeless people. An even better prank would be to rob a bank and use the money to buy a whole bunch of food for homeless people. Everyone would have a good laugh over a prank like that.

How do you know they weren’t undercover agents dressed as homeless men? :wink:

A house is owned by an individual or individuals. A fast food joint is owned by a multi-billion-dollar corporation.

Are you seriously suggesting that obeying the laws of the land is more moral than causing homeless people to be fed?

::runs in thread arms akimbo:: Danger Will Robinson! Danger!

Robin Hood was such a dick, amirite?

So why is giving free food to undercover agents any better than giving free food to homeless guys?

No, a better analogy is if you go to your neighbours and ask to borrow a cup of cat food because you ran out, and then you give it to a starving stray. The company knew they were giving away food for free, and the manger agreed to do it. They were not forced to give away anything.

False pretenses, I imagine.

This is one of those cases where I’m glad I’m an absolute pragmatist. :wink: In this case there is no harm done and some people got fed. In other only marginally ‘similar’ cases, there would be serious harm done.

I’ll have to do a thread about the difference between Good Laws, Useful Laws, and Stupid Laws.

It isn’t.


I feel like I am being played with here.
Giving food to homeless people is immensely more altruistic than giving it to people who at some point can get all they need and more on a daily basis.

I know, I wasn’t playing with you. My comment was directed at those who seem to regard this prank as somehow equivalent to armed robbery, when in fact the true identity of the homeless guys was fairly irrelevant.

If you honestly believe that people are going hungry in cities, you’ve listened to too many panhandlers. There’s so much food through free lunches, soup kitchens, and food banks that anybody who tries to tell you they need money for food is trying to play you, I can almost promise you. So instead of them lying to you, you’ve decided we should do the lying for them? Great.

If it was so important to him to see that the homeless guys got fed, why didn’t he do it himself? Or at least pay for it, rather than trick someone else into it? In this case he gets to tell himself he did a really good thing, and feel good for his act of kindness, when he didn’t do a darn thing.

e: ^^^ he wanted to make a funny YouTube video. This is not complex physics we’re dealing with, here. ^^^

I just can’t believe people are really getting all fired up about a fucking fast food lunch. Jesus Christ.

But the store didn’t give the guys any money, they gave them food. If the homeless guys weren’t hungry, they just wouldn’t eat it.

Sure he could have paid for it himself, but why? The store manager decided to give food away instead.

But… but… then the store would be out dozens and dozens of cents! Won’t somebody please think of the multinational corporations that have billions in assets instead of these pretty-boy homeless dressed in their Armani suits and cruising around in Porsches?