Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 84

Thread: And she called me stupid

  1. Top | #21
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,020
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    26,926
    Rep Power
    71
    Neither a borrower nor lender be.

  2. Top | #22
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,103
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,691
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    I would need more info about the situation in which I borrowed the money. How come I did that? Why am I still speaking to her? Is she a close family member? Is there any other reason to talk to her? I can imagine very unrealistic hypothetical scenarios in which I would borrow money from her, but then, the hypotheses in many of the scenarios play a role on whether I give her the $200 back, or $100, or $0, and only $100 a couple of months later.
    I think you’re overthinking it when you want to consider how the situation came to be. It doesn’t matter one iota. If you said you were gonna pay it back and no strings were spoken of, then barring unforeseen reasons, neither post hoc rationale nor preagreement circumstances alter your moral obligation to do as you said you would.
    No, I think it matters a lot. Previous circumstances do play a role on whether there is a moral obligation in the first place. Not all promises result in obligations (e.g., if someone is pointing a gun at my head, there is no obligation; that might not have been the case here, but then, she might have been taking advantage (knowingly) of a truly dire situation, caused in part by herself, etc.; in short, I need (a lot) more info).

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,509
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,455
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    Never lend to those with whom you expect to converse in the future.
    This. Or go ahead and lend the money, but be sure you're 100% ok with just letting the debt slide when the disagreements about payback come up.

    To me, the name-calling between friends would be the bigger deal than the money. There's no way I'd tolerate it. My friendships have an unbreakable condition on them: it's mutual respect, or BYE.
    Ha!

    If my mates DIDN'T call me rude names, I would know they weren't real friends.

    The stronger the insults, the stronger the friendship. Only your best mate would call you a cunt and not expect a broken nose.

    It's an Australian thing. I wouldn't advise trying it until you have been here a LONG time, unless you are very good at either fighting or running.

    Oh, and never lend money to a friend unless you are prepared to forget either the debt or the relationship.
    I misspoke to make it seem that name-calling was the point, because the point was respect. There's respect or there's no friendship. My friends call each other names, but goofy ones. Never "stupid" because it's never friendly, it's the sort of thing highly abusive parents or spouses, or stupidest of enemies, say. "Cunt" might work because it's a silly word (between men).

  4. Top | #24
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    24,465
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,938
    Rep Power
    100
    I'd pay back the $200 and ding the hell out of their credit rating.

  5. Top | #25
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    24,465
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,938
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    I don't get the idea that she had $200 available to lend to you or possibly to someone else but she didn't have the $100 available to pay you back. Something's missing from the equation. And it doesn't seem like this all is about what's legally justified. It was a handshake agreement based on personal trust.
    I’m not speaking on what may or may not be legal but rather what is or isn’t right.
    You mean, what would be the mature option (discuss it before hand) and the passive-aggressive option (pay back the $200 and needlessly stew over it).

  6. Top | #26
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post
    I would need more info about the situation in which I borrowed the money. How come I did that? Why am I still speaking to her? Is she a close family member? Is there any other reason to talk to her? I can imagine very unrealistic hypothetical scenarios in which I would borrow money from her, but then, the hypotheses in many of the scenarios play a role on whether I give her the $200 back, or $100, or $0, and only $100 a couple of months later.
    I think you’re overthinking it when you want to consider how the situation came to be. It doesn’t matter one iota. If you said you were gonna pay it back and no strings were spoken of, then barring unforeseen reasons, neither post hoc rationale nor preagreement circumstances alter your moral obligation to do as you said you would.
    No, I think it matters a lot. Previous circumstances do play a role on whether there is a moral obligation in the first place. Not all promises result in obligations (e.g., if someone is pointing a gun at my head, there is no obligation; that might not have been the case here, but then, she might have been taking advantage (knowingly) of a truly dire situation, caused in part by herself, etc.; in short, I need (a lot) more info).
    I don’t think it matters, and the reason I don’t think it matters is precisely because it’s a hypothetical scenario. If the information wasn’t given, it shouldn’t be assumed, and it shouldn’t be considered. It’s a straight-up, no hidden truths situation, and though in real life I can appreciate that a promise under duress or threat might not allow for the creation of a moral obligation, I don’t see how this hypothetical can be considered so unrealistic. For you or I maybe, but there are people who don’t thoroughly analyze their friendships.

    Let’s say a group of people work together, and one is a female who loves the saying “the struggle is real.” There’s a guy she works with; he’s her go-to guy when her struggles surface. She borrows $20 or $40 from him, and like always, she pays him back. They’ve known each other for a decade. They cut up, laugh, and occasionally play. They’ll buy each other lunch once in a while, and although it might be a little whopsided as to who buys more often than not, no one feels taken advantage of. Although she has borrowed as high as $400 in the past, he’s always been paid back. The most he’s ever borrowed was just enough to cover a lunch; either way, in the end, the books are balanced. No one gets stiffed.

    A time comes where she gets her taxes back, and though it’s a great opportunity to repay the $100, her reality has some rather pressing struggles; the guy, at the time, just so happens to have an emergency and in need of a couple hundred bucks, and she realizes that because they share their stories. She offers to lend him $200 but expresses the need that she get it all back because of her single mom struggles. Nothing is said or brought up about the unpaid $100 to him; they both know and neither have forgotten.

    When it comes time for him to pay, he does not all of a sudden utilize this opportunity to HAVE A DISCUSSION. Despite having gone without the $100 that she’ll get around to paying, he decides to keep his word and honor his agreement—which in the eyes of some is stupid since he has the opportunity to fuck her over by using the most inopportune time to balance the books and reassess whatever lopsidedness may exist in this perhaps less than desirable friendship according to others and their armchair thinking.

    If you borrow my rake and don’t immediately return it, I’m still going to return the shovel I borrowed. That’s the right thing to do. Money shouldn’t make things different. If I say I’m going to return the $200 I borrowed, there should be absolutely no room for calculating or discussions. If I want my $100 back, I might bring it up, but the $200 will be returned first, and the topic won’t be had until much later, if ever.

  7. Top | #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    325
    Archived
    5,932
    Total Posts
    6,257
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post

    Any thoughts?
    Given the hypothetical as presented, I think you're right.

  8. Top | #28
    Veteran Member Treedbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    out on a limb
    Posts
    1,477
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Angra Mainyu View Post

    No, I think it matters a lot. Previous circumstances do play a role on whether there is a moral obligation in the first place. Not all promises result in obligations (e.g., if someone is pointing a gun at my head, there is no obligation; that might not have been the case here, but then, she might have been taking advantage (knowingly) of a truly dire situation, caused in part by herself, etc.; in short, I need (a lot) more info).
    I don’t think it matters, and the reason I don’t think it matters is precisely because it’s a hypothetical scenario. If the information wasn’t given, it shouldn’t be assumed, and it shouldn’t be considered. It’s a straight-up, no hidden truths situation, and though in real life I can appreciate that a promise under duress or threat might not allow for the creation of a moral obligation, I don’t see how this hypothetical can be considered so unrealistic. For you or I maybe, but there are people who don’t thoroughly analyze their friendships.
    I agree with Angra because what's morally right and wrong always depends on circumstances. There is no formula for what's right and wrong.

    ...
    If you borrow my rake and don’t immediately return it, I’m still going to return the shovel I borrowed. That’s the right thing to do. Money shouldn’t make things different. If I say I’m going to return the $200 I borrowed, there should be absolutely no room for calculating or discussions. If I want my $100 back, I might bring it up, but the $200 will be returned first, and the topic won’t be had until much later, if ever.
    The world is far from ideal. The fact that they didn't honor their commitment should be reflected in the level of trust you put in them going forward. If the person didn't yet return the rake or the $100 would you trust them enough to lend another tool or more money? If the answer is yes then you're correct to honor your commitment. But eventually you'll say no more and it's time to take people to account.

  9. Top | #29
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,103
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    9,691
    Rep Power
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by fast
    I don’t think it matters, and the reason I don’t think it matters is precisely because it’s a hypothetical scenario. If the information wasn’t given, it shouldn’t be assumed, and it shouldn’t be considered. It’s a straight-up, no hidden truths situation, and though in real life I can appreciate that a promise under duress or threat might not allow for the creation of a moral obligation, I don’t see how this hypothetical can be considered so unrealistic. For you or I maybe, but there are people who don’t thoroughly analyze their friendships.
    When we consider hypothetical scenarios (or real ones, for that matter), what we have is actually an under-determined picture, not a full scenario. Our information is always incomplete. In order to make moral assessments, at least we need to have all of the morally relevant information, or enough so that the margin of error is very small.
    In this particular scenario, I do not have anything like that. The scenario remains underdetermined in ways that are morally relevant.

    As to how realistic the hypothetical is, I have to say it is for me. There is absolutely no way I would be in one of those situations, barring some extremely improbable events. I would need more information about those events in order to make an assessment.



    Quote Originally Posted by fast
    Let’s say a group of people work together, and one is a female who loves the saying “the struggle is real.” There’s a guy she works with; he’s her go-to guy when her struggles surface. She borrows $20 or $40 from him, and like always, she pays him back. They’ve known each other for a decade. They cut up, laugh, and occasionally play. They’ll buy each other lunch once in a while, and although it might be a little whopsided as to who buys more often than not, no one feels taken advantage of. Although she has borrowed as high as $400 in the past, he’s always been paid back. The most he’s ever borrowed was just enough to cover a lunch; either way, in the end, the books are balanced. No one gets stiffed.

    A time comes where she gets her taxes back, and though it’s a great opportunity to repay the $100, her reality has some rather pressing struggles; the guy, at the time, just so happens to have an emergency and in need of a couple hundred bucks, and she realizes that because they share their stories. She offers to lend him $200 but expresses the need that she get it all back because of her single mom struggles. Nothing is said or brought up about the unpaid $100 to him; they both know and neither have forgotten.
    That's much better. It's a lot more information. But why is the unpaid debt not even mentioned, even though he has an emergency?
    Anyway, given what you're saying, it seems to me that he very probably should pay. To be clear, I'm assessing what he should do, not what I should do. I would not be that person (he is very, very different from me). I'm trying to fill in the gaps as to how their relationship happens, but at least I can do that because of all of the background information you gave now but had not given before. I was not able to make even a "very probable" assessment before.

    Quote Originally Posted by fast
    When it comes time for him to pay, he does not all of a sudden utilize this opportunity to HAVE A DISCUSSION. Despite having gone without the $100 that she’ll get around to paying, he decides to keep his word and honor his agreement—which in the eyes of some is stupid since he has the opportunity to fuck her over by using the most inopportune time to balance the books and reassess whatever lopsidedness may exist in this perhaps less than desirable friendship according to others and their armchair thinking.
    Now you have added a lot more information about those people, so at least I can make a "very probable" assessment.

    Quote Originally Posted by fast
    If you borrow my rake and don’t immediately return it, I’m still going to return the shovel I borrowed. That’s the right thing to do. Money shouldn’t make things different. If I say I’m going to return the $200 I borrowed, there should be absolutely no room for calculating or discussions. If I want my $100 back, I might bring it up, but the $200 will be returned first, and the topic won’t be had until much later, if ever.
    No, that depends on the situation.

  10. Top | #30
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Treedbear View Post
    The world is far from ideal. The fact that they didn't honor their commitment should be reflected in the level of trust you put in them going forward.
    That makes sense. If I loan money and don’t get it back, that should be a red flag should I decide to lend again. But remember, this scenario is flipped around. For simplicities sake, let’s say the original agreement is between a man and a woman where the woman is the borrower. The second agreement is the other way around where the man is the borrower. What you’re saying is good advice should the man be contemplating being the lender.

    If the person didn't yet return the rake or the $100 would you trust them enough to lend another tool or more money?
    Again, this is flipped. Let’s say I borrow the rake from you. You are the lender, and you ask that I have it back to you by the weekend because you’ll be needing it. I, as the borrower, agree to have it back to you by the weekend.

    Weekend comes and guess what, I have not done as I said I would. Hell, two months later, I still have it. I know it; you know it;

    You are now in need of a shovel, and this time, you take on the role, not as a repeat lender, but instead this time, you’re the borrower. I explain to you that i’ll need it back by the weekend because I’ll be needing it.

    Yes, you could have rubbed it in my face that I never returned the rake, but you don’t. If there was ever a time to start holding me to account, it should have been BEFORE any agreement on YOUR part.

    Now, the weekend has come. What are you going to do? Are you going to walk over, shovel in hand, and say, we need to talk? Are you going to start jogging my memory? Withhold the shovel? You may decide that I’m a piece of shit for not returning the rake and swear to never lend to me again, but as a borrower, who has given your word, you should do exactly what it is you said you would and return the shovel, regardless of the circumstances with the rake.

    As a lender, your part was done after lending the rake. As a borrower, your part isn’t done until after returning the shovel. You can decide to do what’s right in light of any wrongs others have committed.

    It’s the same with money. You lent me $100. After having gone unpaid, you borrowed $200 from me. My wrong doesn’t dissolve your obligation. If you hand me $100 and say we’re even, it may feel right, but it isn’t. You are obligated to repay the $200, and if you don’t, what you’re doing is wrong. Smart, maybe, but that’s the other issue that’s not really being touched on.

Similar Threads

  1. Ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer
    By LordKiran in forum Freethought Humor
    Replies: 623
    Last Post: 11-16-2017, 03:43 AM
  2. The So-Called President is ILLITERATE.
    By Elixir in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 02-22-2017, 12:39 AM
  3. Why isn't anyone called 'an elbow?'
    By Keith&Co. in forum Freethought Humor
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 10-07-2015, 03:31 AM
  4. alien as creator of man so called theory
    By BH in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10-25-2014, 12:16 AM
  5. Once Upon A Time There These People Called Republicans
    By AthenaAwakened in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-24-2014, 02:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •