Clear? Clear. CLEAR?? Crystal.
Clear? Clear. CLEAR?? Crystal.
Well the way I see it if a friend is willing to lend money to me and I'm willing to accept a loan from a friend then it means I'd be willing to lend money to them also. It needs to be a two way street. That's the way interpersonal relationships work. Banks are different and have stricter means of accounting that don't always reflect how honorable and trustworthy they or the individual are, but are simply based on balancing out accounts. Which means you'd get to keep your $100.Originally Posted by fast
If I’m the borrower, the trustworthiness of the lender is irrelevant. If you tell me you have to have it back, I should not say I will pay it back if I tell you I will but won’t.Trust has to be mutual. That's why I don't understand how you could seek to borrow any money from her when she had already demonstrated her own ongoing lack of integrity. There's a distinct irony in assuming she should trust you when it's obvious to everyone you have no reason to trust her. The only exception I can see is as an act of charity, which would be commendable if that was the motive. But that would imply you've forgiven her debt.
Friend or no friend, if you’re the borrower and capable and willing to keep your word, then you should. I don’t particularly feel too inclined or somehow obligated to lend someone money just because they would lend it to me, especially if they a proven track record of failing to live up to their end of the bargain.
I’ve met a few people (and believe me when I say they’re far and few between) that would not dream of reneging on their word. They wouldn’t be swayed in the slightest by some argument that they had no obligation to do as they said.
If you borrowed fifty dollars from someone and later you caught them stealing from you, you may net keep your word. You may feel justified. You may feel that the obligation has gone away. Heck, you may be justified and no longer have an obligation, but for a proud few, no matter what you say, you will never have good reason to call them a liar.
People are always capable of coming up with excuses for why they don’t do what they said they would—and don’t do what they said they would.
People (but substantively fewer) may have a legitamate justifiable reason for why they didnt do what they said they would—and also don’t (forgivably so) do what they said they would.
Then, you have people who let’s neither justification nor good sense stand in their way. Of course, there’s numerous hypotheticals where one cannot do as they said they would, but there’s plenty of justifiable reasons that can be overcome.
Some people will accept a little inconvenience before not keeping their word, but how many would down right suffer?
Yeah. Prisoners don't choose.
They are held against their will. But even still, they can choose which of their sides to sleep on.
If you’re saying we’re trapped to choose what we must, like prisoners of our limitations, or some such jazz, then even though we are bound by our abilities, we can freely choose between our available choices.
Re-reading the OP it looks like the two people involved actually never were described as friends. So I guess you'd say I was mistaken. It was confusing because you were discussing a hypothetical with a friend who also happened to be a she, and I guess I conflated them. But then again the two of you were taking on the roles pretty well. Be that as it may, it seems logical to ask why you would lend $100 to her in the first place. There has to be something in it for you, if only friendship. I told you what I believe friendship means and that it needs to be reciprocal. The same goes for her when she lends you the $200. Why would she do that for a stranger? Is there interest involved? First born son perhaps? No and no. Playing you for a fool does start to make sense. Of course it's just a hypothetical situation so that's not an attack on your character. The scenario just doesn't seem plausible, and so I think you may be using it as a stage for moral self-righteousness. Yeah, I think that's why my mind keeps going back to the Merchant of Venice. You promised a pound of flesh?? Really? A pound of your own flesh? What rational, moral reason is there for anyone to ever ask for that?
It's no longer an agreement if it's commingled without the agreement of both parties. The sensible thing is to ask clearly, "How much of this 200 dollars is to be paid back, in light of the 100 dollars you owe me?"--then, if the answer is $200, and if you need the 200, take it, and pay the whole thing back with the reminder, "You still owe me $100."So you (like me) would have been willing to pay the entire $200; granted, it’s post discussion, but ultimately, you wouldn’t have just commingled the agreements and adjusted accordingly.
Didn't really need a bump, however, I was getting tired of the previous thread that is still on the main page list.
really? I mean really???
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote