• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

And she called me stupid

fast said:
Treedbear said:
fast said:
“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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
fromderinside said:
Clear? Clear. CLEAR?? Crystal.
Click to expand...
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?
 
fromderinside said:
Yeah. Prisoners don't choose.
Click to expand...
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.
 
fast said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
fast said:
Rhea said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
Didn't really need a bump, however, I was getting tired of the previous thread that is still on the main page list.
 
fromderinside,

Even a statement with no obligatory thrust is true or false. If I say, “I will pay,” even the absence of obligation will not twirl a falsity into a truthhood.

If I adopt a second class sentiment, be wary of me, for I am shrewd.
 
fast said:
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?
Click to expand...

Imo, it would be generous to repay all the $200.

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.
 
ruby sparks said:
Imo, it would be generous to repay all the $200.
Click to expand...
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.

Satisfying the check is not an act of generosity. I would in fact owe that bill. There is an actual obligation to pay. There too is an expectation to pay, but the originating thrust behind that is spawned elsewhere. If it turns out there was no obligation and I unwittingly payed anyway, it would not be considered generosity. If it turns out there was no obligation and I willing paid anyway, it would be generosity but not expected.

In the borrowing situation, it’s not the case that I don’t have an obligation to pay, and not paying you because you so happen to also owe me is a rationalization and at least akin to an attempt to justify immoral behavior. It’s similar in form to revenge; you screwed me so I screw you back. I should be judged by my actions. I don’t have to wrong you when you yourself have wronged me.

However, let’s say (in light of many posters comments) that I somehow do not in fact have an obligation to pay. There’s still the everpresent issue that I gave my word. I said I would do something, and if I don’t, then I will not have done what I said I would. Does our word not mean anything anymore? To many in this world, they not only don’t care, they don’t understand why they should. Not even the absence of obligation alters the fact that my word is unkept if I choose to reconcile the books by balancing them.

If there is no obligation, payment (the $200) would still not be born out of generosity. That is not the spark igniting the flames (it is not the rationale behind the gesture to pay). So why pay? Because I said I would. When I looked into your eyes and said I would do something, you can expect that I will do just as I said I would. I don’t care why you haven’t lived up to your end of an entirely different bargain. That’s on you. Whether you keep your word is on you.

When a patron sits down at a restaurant, there is no tacit agreement between the help and the patron, but there is an obligation to pay the business whether I verbally express my word to pay or not, but let’s say I do promise to pay for my meal, there is a tacit agreement that an exchange is in order. If you don’t provide the meal, it is not the breaking of my word if I don’t pay, for what I gave my word to was to pay for a provided meal. If the meal is not provided, there is no word to live up to. It would be like me promising to pay you $20 for you selling me your $50,000 car. If you don’t sell it to me, I haven’t went against my word to pay.

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.
Click to expand...
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.

One, there is no such intent or aim to come out ahead. Not so stupid indeed if such an intentionally executed shrewd plan workes out.

Two, what fuels my position is that keeping my word (with an obligatory thrust or otherwise) is the notion that it’s smarter to keep one’s word and accept a minor financially disadvantaged position.

When I set this scenario up, it was done hurriedly. I did not anticipate it being deemed so unrealistic—especially since it’s a not so infrequent occurance I’ve heard discussed outside these forum gates before. If the scenario was adjusted to accommodate this barrier, I wonder how things would have panned out.
 
I would try to avoid problems by having $200 on hand which I display to the other party. I then consciously put the two hundred on the table with my hand atop the cash. I remind the other party of their obligation to me and suggest they use $100 of the two hundred under my hand to settle their debt to me. The other party can object but they don't yet have possession of the two hundred. I take back the two hundred. But I remain in the room giving the other party time to reconsider the situation. All they have to do is ask for accounts to be settled whereupon I'll give then $100 dollars and say accounts settled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom