fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Clear? Clear. CLEAR?? Crystal.
“It’s an unrealistic scenario.”
I don’t think this is as unrealistic as it seems. I say this because some older people have recollected similar situations where similar circumstances have occurred. As to the issue of whether an obligation continues to exist, I just don’t know.
But, if I tell you (unrealistic as it might be) that’ll i’ll pay you $200 back, i’m not going to use that opportunity to balance the books for your failure to pay me as you had originally said you would. It seems dishonorable. Maybe it’s technically not if the obligation isn’t really there, but say what some might, it has the feel of being wrong.
That’s not to say I might not grin if I see another otherwise good person say towards an otherwise bad person, “hey, you screwed me; I screwed ya back!” In the end, it may be an equitable and fair outcome, but I would not personally place trust in such a person should I enter into such an agreement with him, and that’s because his sense of obligation is in stark disaccord with my view on his willingness to keep his word.
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.
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.
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.Clear? Clear. CLEAR?? Crystal.
They are held against their will. But even still, they can choose which of their sides to sleep on.Yeah. Prisoners don't choose.
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.
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."I would definitely have said something. Like “Do you want me to just pay back the $100 so we’re even up now? I’m prepared to pay what I borrowed, but if you want to use the opportunity to square up, let me know.”
I wouldn’t say “stupid”, but I would definitely have used the opportunity to discuss.
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.
Okay.Your stupid.
Your stupid.
I overheard a conversation she was having, and in light of it decided to pose a hypothetical scenario question. We’ve known each other a long time, and we speak our minds, so trust me when I say calling me stupid was mild. Although I’ve been called a whole lot worse by her over the years, truth is, we’ve become friends and there’s just no telling what we might say. At any rate, my hypothetical was meant to simplify and parallel the jist of something she said in the conversation I heard. I’ll now pose it to you all.
Let’s say someone comes to you to borrow $100 — with the agreement that it will be paid back next Friday. You lend it to her. Next Friday comes, but you are not paid back. So, this someone still owes you $100.
Fast forward a couple months later. The person still hasn’t paid nor has forgotten, but you need to borrow $200 —with the agreement that it will be paid back next Friday. She lends it to you.
When Friday comes,
do you A) pay back a hundred dollars (of the $200) thereby balancing the books such that no one owes either any money, or
do you B) pay back the entire two hundred dollars, with that person still owing you $100?
She said “A”
She said, “what, you’d pay [$200]?”
I said yes and she called me stupid.
She said her not being paid back is partly why she’s in the mess now—would of only had to borrow $100.
My reasoning is that two wrongs don’t make it right; they’re independent agreements. A person not honoring her agreement doesn’t justify me breaking mine.
I told a couple others what had happened. Both said they’d only pay back $100. One also thought I was stupid. One understood where I was coming from. She tried to explain that people that lend shouldn’t expect it back. I said, as the borrower, I can still decide to keep my word and honor my agreement regardless of the choices others make. If she wants to turn around and pay me back the $100 she owes, that’s her choice.
On moral grounds, I think I have the upper hand, but on stupidity grounds, that’s still up in the air. If this were a legal transaction with extra zeros and there was a caveat for me to take an “A” type position, morality be damned, I wouldn’t be stupid, but with little money, I don’t see the advantage of doing what’s wrong—even if the person you’re doing it to would actually understand and accept it.
I think some may hold that it wouldn’t be wrong to pay back only the $100, but for those that think it is actually wrong but also thinks it’s stupid, if they are right, it would be stupid to do what’s right.
Any thoughts?
Prostitution is illegal ... in some places, you hooker, he heWhy are you defending yourself fast. I applauded OLDMAN because he probably just used the wrong form of you. I took him to be intentional which resulted in both stupid and well played.. Hooked you didn't it?
Tipping a waitress is generous. There is no obligation to tip. There is a social expectation, but that doesn’t produce a responsibility, duty, or obligation—morally, legally, or socially.Imo, it would be generous to repay all the $200.
I follow you. There can be a strategic advantage in play that may ultimately prove fruitful—a short term tactical maneuver fostering eventual completion of a longer term strategic goal.It wouldn't be particularly stupid though.
It seems to me like some sort of game theory scenario. A long-term strategy involving paying back the $200 might work out better. The repayer can decide their views on that. Generosity can be rewarded via reciprocity (or reputation) later.