[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
It’s only risky to eat where I work if the diner is an ass.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s risky because you, not the diner, is such.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
It’s only risky to eat where I work if the diner is an ass.
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s risky because you, not the diner, is such.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
What I’d like to know is-why hasn’t someone banned this fuckwit yet?
[/QUOTE]
Because his tastes in music are rather interesting and exploratory, and he on occasion has been know to say something rational.
[QUOTE=Miller]
In general, this is true.
[/QUOTE]
I’m speaking in an absolute context. Simply because something is a law does not indicate that it is ‘right’. There are a lot of ‘laws’ in North Korea that suck ass. 'Law" and ‘Right’ are two different things… It just so happens that in our society we are blessed with laws that tend to make sense and seem to be good.
[QUOTE=Monty]
No, it’s risky because you, not the diner, is such.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve stated my “offense rate” and it’s pretty low. It’s reasonable for nice, decent people to assume they’re safe… My definition of “nice, decent people” is generally consistent with the public’s definition.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
Ok, well, whatever. Can we ATD on this one?
[/quote]
In the sense that I’m correct and you’re a bit of a sociopath, sure.
I think you’ve confused “personal rules” and “laws.”
“Blindly”? No. But I follow the vast majority of them, which includes all those that prohibit me from damaging my fellow citizens.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
I’m speaking in an absolute context. Simply because something is a law does not indicate that it is ‘right’. There are a lot of ‘laws’ in North Korea that suck ass. 'Law" and ‘Right’ are two different things… It just so happens that in our society we are blessed with laws that tend to make sense and seem to be good.
[/QUOTE]
Thank you for over-explaining a concept most of us had figured out by the ninth grade.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
PunditLisa: I couldn’t care less about felonies in the moral sense simply because they’re defined as such.
[/QUOTE]
There are profoundly practical reasons to avoid committing felonies that have nothing to do with morality.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
Jodi: It’s justice for me and that’s all I need re: justice.
And cowardice? Nah, just a compromise. I don’t want to lose my job.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that’s the definition of cowardice. You take actions and hide from their consequences. I can think of no way to define the word “cowardice” to exclude cringing from the potential results of your actions without robbing that word of any meaning whatsoever. You are a coward.
As I said before, you’re also embarassingly unimaginative.
Because, again, you’re a coward. That’s fine; there are many cowards in the world, and I’d say that many people are cowardly some of the time. And you can keep repeating that you’re not all you want, but still - when the going gets tough, you snigger impotently from your corner while taking your pitiful “revenge” that never even touches your intended target. Could anything be more feeble?
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
But I have to ask: are you telling me that you blindly follow every and all laws written for your society? All of them? If so, I’d say that’s pretty silly and naive.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know how old you are, but you come across as a kid who’s trying to play poker with his uncles for the first time, so I’m going to cut you some slack. But allow me to offer you some unsolicted advice:
There are a few people on these boards whom you should avoid in a debate. Jodi and Miller are two of them. They can probably solve Level 5 Logic Problems, damn their souls. Don’t argue with them; they will win.
Many, many posters have assumed the role of provocateur. You possess neither the intellect nor the debating skills necessary to serve the role well. Give it up already because you look more like, well, a poseur.
I’m sure you’ll cut and paste this line by line with what you believe are snappy rejoinders. It’s not necessary. Really. We all get the picture.
Finally, keep in mind that the kid who plays poker with his uncles for the first time almost always ends up penniless.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
I think you’ve confused “personal rules” and “laws.”
[/QUOTE]
“personal rules” is fine with me, I’ll use that from now on.
[QUOTE=Jodi]
“Blindly”? No. But I follow the vast majority of them, which includes all those that prohibit me from damaging my fellow citizens.
[/QUOTE]
But aren’t all laws designed to protect society and it’s citizens? Which ones don’t you follow?
[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
There are profoundly practical reasons to avoid committing felonies that have nothing to do with morality.
[/QUOTE]
I agree.
[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
I don’t know how old you are, but you come across as a kid who’s trying to play poker with his uncles for the first time, so I’m going to cut you some slack. But allow me to offer you some unsolicted advice:
There are a few people on these boards whom you should avoid in a debate. Jodi and Miller are two of them. They can probably solve Level 5 Logic Problems, damn their souls. Don’t argue with them; they will win.
Many, many posters have assumed the role of provocateur. You possess neither the intellect nor the debating skills necessary to serve the role well. Give it up already because you look more like, well, a poseur.
I’m sure you’ll cut and paste this line by line with what you believe are snappy rejoinders. It’s not necessary. Really. We all get the picture.
Finally, keep in mind that the kid who plays poker with his uncles for the first time almost always ends up penniless.
[/QUOTE]
Why should I avoid someone in a debate simply because they are a good debater or smart? I don’t care if I lose.
[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
What’s funny is, not five minutes ago I walked face first into a plate glass window I’d mistaken for a door.
But seriously, thanks for the compliment!
[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
Yeah, that’s the definition of cowardice. You take actions and hide from their consequences. I can think of no way to define the word “cowardice” to exclude cringing from the potential results of your actions without robbing that word of any meaning whatsoever. You are a coward.
As I said before, you’re also embarassingly unimaginative.
Because, again, you’re a coward. That’s fine; there are many cowards in the world, and I’d say that many people are cowardly some of the time. And you can keep repeating that you’re not all you want, but still - when the going gets tough, you snigger impotently from your corner while taking your pitiful “revenge” that never even touches your intended target. Could anything be more feeble?
[/QUOTE]
So exited!
I don’t share your definition of cowardice. But if you want to call my actions cowardly, that’s fine. It doesn’t matter to me.
[QUOTE=Miller]
What’s funny is, not five minutes ago I walked face first into a plate glass window I’d mistaken for a door.
[/QUOTE]
You think it’s a coincidence that this happened right around the time I damned your soul? :dubious:
You’re welcome. For the compliment, not the plate glass window thing.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
I’ve stated my “offense rate” and it’s pretty low. It’s reasonable for nice, decent people to assume they’re safe… My definition of “nice, decent people” is generally consistent with the public’s definition.
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm…the only acceptable low offense rate is zero, as it’s a crime (shown in the link above) to tamper with someone’s food and it’s well-known that theft is a crime.
My assumptions when I dine in a restaurant are:
[ol][li]The waitstaff and cooks have been certified by the relevant health agencies to work in food service.[/li][li]The waitstaff and cooks are aware of the laws relating to their employment.[/li][li]The management supervises the waitstaff and cooks to ensure they not only perform their duties with courtesy and a good demeanor, but also they obey the relevant laws.[/li][li]That if one of the employees tampers with a customer’s food or steals from a customer, they will–at a minimum–be fired for cause. I would prefer that the individual both be fired and prosecuted.[/ol][/li]
I would think your employer would have been much less than pleased to discover you had tampered with a customer’s food or stole from a customer. Do you realize the financial liability that exposes the employer to? And all because you got offended. Very mature.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
Ok, fair enough. I have provided no frame of reference. You have no way of knowing that I don’t act “horribly” all day long.
I don’t do it very often, maybe I dunno, once a month or so? But I don’t strive to meet a quota…
You gotta be pretty bad. I’m sure you’re safe.
[/QUOTE]
You could be the most perfect waiter forever and ever. Throwing away an engagement ring is one of the most horrible things I have heard someone admit to doing on this board. Spitting/serving bad food/whatever doesn’t even come close to doing such a thing. I have worked customer service (not in the food industry however) and been treated badly. I have had people grab me, push me, get in my face and yell at me (okay the last 2 were the same guy), etc. In no way would I ever consider it “justice” or whatever to throw away an engagement ring.
In retrospect, do you feel bad about your actions?
[QUOTE=Miller]
What’s funny is, not five minutes ago I walked face first into a plate glass window I’d mistaken for a door.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t feel bad, “door or window?” is a Level 6 Logic Problem.
[QUOTE=Shamozzle]
So exited!
[/QUOTE]
What does this mean? I am not being obtuse or disingenuous; I don’t understand this syntax.
Would you care to share your definition?
PS (huge hijack) - Queuing, I swear on my mother, when I read your name in this thread, the first damn thing that passed through my mind was: shit. He’s on to me. Then I remembered that the freaking game is over.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
What I’d like to know is-why hasn’t someone banned this fuckwit yet?
[/QUOTE]
What rules has he broken? Also, like Silenus said, he’s got interesting things to say about music, movies, and books. (Though it would be nice if he could just say them, without prefacing them with comments about how his taste is so much cooler than anyone else’s.)