3 ms·

Two thoughts: 1. Was that really the phone company's money? My first thought on hearing that story was that the $6 in change was from people putting money into

by pyre 12y ago

Two thoughts: 1. Was that really the phone company's money? My first thought on hearing that story was that the $6 in change was from people putting money into the broken phone, realizing it was broken, and leaving without their money. Does the phone company really deserve money that the phone 'eats' when it doesn't deliver the service that people are giving it money for? 2. If you sent the phone company that $6 today, they would file criminal charges, because that cheque is an admission of guilt for stealing money from them. (Much in the way that, "I stumbled across a security flaw," is responded to nowadays)

roel_v 12y ago
"2. If you sent the phone company that $6 today, they would file criminal charges, because that cheque is an admission of guilt for stealing money from them." Uhm, yeah, pardon my French, but that's complete bullshit.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
tedsanders 12y ago
Two thoughts in response to your thoughts: 1. Sure, it's possible the phone company didn't "deserve" the money (perhaps, as you say, the phone failed to make calls). But it's just as possible the phone company did "deserve" the money (and that the phone made calls but refunded the change). There's no way to know what happened for certain. However, what is certain is that the kid did not earn or "deserve" the money. It also becomes quite dangerous to reason based on who "deserves" something. Am I entitled to rob any person who has not lived a moral life by my standards of morality? (No.) :) 2. I think this is hyperbole and a total strawman. Mailing $6 to a phone company will not result in a lawsuit. Do you actually think this would happen? I worry that attitudes like this come from the selection bias in the media, where rare outrageous stories are reported far more often than commonplace stories, resulting in shifted perceptions of reality. If you would care to bet or fund me, I would be happy to send $6 to a phone company. I highly doubt that criminal charges would be filed against me. Your thoughts seem to be trying to rationalize taking money that isn't yours. I think this is precisely the attitude that his grandfather was hoping to avoid instilling in his grandchild. (P.S. I mean no offense or snobbery, in case any came across.)
- jacalata 12y ago
  Interesting juxtaposition there: " what is certain is that the kid did not earn or "deserve" the money. It also becomes quite dangerous to reason based on who "deserves" something. "
- pyre 12y ago
  My intent was not to say that the child "deserved it." I was commenting on the indirect implication that the phone company deserved it. By taking the money from the child because they "don't deserve it" and giving it to the phone company, he's implicitly stating that the phone company deserves it.

by pyre 12y ago

roel_v 12y ago

"2. If you sent the phone company that $6 today, they would file criminal charges, because that cheque is an admission of guilt for stealing money from them." Uhm, yeah, pardon my French, but that's complete bullshit.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

tedsanders 12y ago

Two thoughts in response to your thoughts: 1. Sure, it's possible the phone company didn't "deserve" the money (perhaps, as you say, the phone failed to make calls). But it's just as possible the phone company did "deserve" the money (and that the phone made calls but refunded the change). There's no way to know what happened for certain. However, what is certain is that the kid did not earn or "deserve" the money. It also becomes quite dangerous to reason based on who "deserves" something. Am I entitled to rob any person who has not lived a moral life by my standards of morality? (No.) :) 2. I think this is hyperbole and a total strawman. Mailing $6 to a phone company will not result in a lawsuit. Do you actually think this would happen? I worry that attitudes like this come from the selection bias in the media, where rare outrageous stories are reported far more often than commonplace stories, resulting in shifted perceptions of reality. If you would care to bet or fund me, I would be happy to send $6 to a phone company. I highly doubt that criminal charges would be filed against me. Your thoughts seem to be trying to rationalize taking money that isn't yours. I think this is precisely the attitude that his grandfather was hoping to avoid instilling in his grandchild. (P.S. I mean no offense or snobbery, in case any came across.)

jacalata 12y ago
Interesting juxtaposition there: " what is certain is that the kid did not earn or "deserve" the money. It also becomes quite dangerous to reason based on who "deserves" something. "
pyre 12y ago
My intent was not to say that the child "deserved it." I was commenting on the indirect implication that the phone company deserved it. By taking the money from the child because they "don't deserve it" and giving it to the phone company, he's implicitly stating that the phone company deserves it.