A Dutchesque Moral Dilemma

[Jason Pawloski]

Everyone, except complete degenerates like Dutch, recognize that buying a
camera for one-time use and returning it later is wrong. Beldim even spoke
up and gave personal insight from his minimum wage overnight job at the
Best Buy in the middle of the ghetto, something I think we all appreciate
mostly because he wasn't calling anyone a shithead.

So how about this - you want to check your credit score. Contrary to
common misconception, you can check your credit *report* for free, but not
your credit *score.* You sign up for a "10 day free trial" with a company
for the sole purpose of checking your credit score, knowing full well that
you will cancel the membership before ever paying anything.

Is this morally wrong? If not, which differing aspect changes the morality
of the situation?

--
RGP's Stupidest Poster by popular vote - 3/22/09 to 6/13/10

Jerry "The Savant" Sturdivant - making up a position for reality since
1926.

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[Jason Pawloski]

On Apr 11 2012 9:28 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:

> Contrary to common misconception, you can check your credit *report* for
free, but not
> your credit *score.*

I actually have no idea if this is true or not. I just heard this a long
time ago and just realized I didn't confirm it. If it's not true, please
pretend it is for the purposes of this discussion.

--
RGP's Stupidest Poster by popular vote - 3/22/09 to 6/13/10

Jerry "The Savant" Sturdivant - making up a position for reality since
1926.

---- 

[phlash74]

It's true, your FICO score is based on a combination of information from
all three major credit bureaus - Equifax, Trans Union, and Experian. You
are legally entitled to receive a free credit report (which does not
include your FICO score) from each of the three bureaus once a year by
going to annualcreditreport.com (beware sites such as freecreditreport.com
which offer you a free credit report if you sign up for a monthly service
such as described in the OP - they're trying to get you to pay for
something the government says they have to give you free).

I don't think the action you describe (signing up for a free trial to
obtain your FICO score, then cancelling the service before you're charged)
is morally wrong for two reasons. First of all, it's YOUR information and
has a large effect on your life - any time you apply for a loan, mortgage,
or credit - hell, even a job - your credit score is being checked.
Secondly, the service is advertised as providing a free trial period.
They're specifically offering to give you your credit score in order to
entice you to try their credit protection service (or whatever they're
selling). If Best Buy publicized their return policies as giving you a
free 30 day trial (like those late night infomercials), then the camera
thing wouldn't be wrong - but they don't, and it is.

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

______________________________________________________________________ 

[Dutch]

"Jason Pawloski" <a67...@webnntp.invalid> wrote

> Everyone, except complete degenerates like Dutch, recognize that buying a
> camera for one-time use and returning it later is wrong.

I know its wrong, just not wrong enough to prevent me from doing it if I had
no better option, which hasn't happened yet.

Its probably wrong to spend all the money I do on non-essentials like kitty
litter when people all over the world are desperate and starving, but c'est
la vie. Morality is a messy business.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:33:39 -0700, "phlash74"
<a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
>I don't think the action you describe (signing up for a free trial to
>obtain your FICO score, then cancelling the service before you're charged)
>is morally wrong for two reasons. First of all, it's YOUR information and
>has a large effect on your life - any time you apply for a loan, mortgage,
>or credit - hell, even a job - your credit score is being checked.
>Secondly, the service is advertised as providing a free trial period.
>They're specifically offering to give you your credit score in order to
>entice you to try their credit protection service (or whatever they're
>selling). If Best Buy publicized their return policies as giving you a
>free 30 day trial (like those late night infomercials), then the camera
>thing wouldn't be wrong - but they don't, and it is.

Thirdly, trying and canceling has zero effect on the value of the
product being offered. There's no need for selling a refurbished or
open box product at a discount.

[Dave the Clueless]

It is a trial offer. They make money on the assumption that most people
won't bother to cancel for $30. And they offer a service that by law is
available for free once a year.

It's like "free HBO weekend" from your cable company. It is OK to watch
Game of Thrones even though you know you have no intention of subscribing.

In the case of the credit report, you also do not take an item of value
and reduce its worth without compensating the owner as you do when you
"borrow" a camera.

-------
Arguing with a liberal is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't
matter how good you are at chess since the pigeon is just going to knock
over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around likes it’s victorious.

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

On Apr 11 2012 8:42 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:

> On Apr 11 2012 9:28 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
>
> > Contrary to common misconception, you can check your credit *report* for
> free, but not
> > your credit *score.*
>
> I actually have no idea if this is true or not.

"Contrary to common misconception," you simply have no idea?

Heh.

Jerry (lol) 'n Vegas

Jason Pawloski, RGP's self-admitted Stupidest Poster

I just heard this a long
> time ago and just realized I didn't confirm it. If it's not true, please
> pretend it is for the purposes of this discussion.
>
> --

>

> Jerry "The Savant" Sturdivant - making up a position for reality since
> 1926.
>
> ---- 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

Correct. The "try it" is simply another marketing technique.


Jerry

---- 

[mo_ntresor]

On Apr 11 2012 9:28 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:

> Everyone, except complete degenerates like Dutch, recognize that buying a
> camera for one-time use and returning it later is wrong. Beldim even spoke
> up and gave personal insight from his minimum wage overnight job at the
> Best Buy in the middle of the ghetto, something I think we all appreciate
> mostly because he wasn't calling anyone a shithead.
>
> So how about this - you want to check your credit score. Contrary to
> common misconception, you can check your credit *report* for free, but not
> your credit *score.* You sign up for a "10 day free trial" with a company
> for the sole purpose of checking your credit score, knowing full well that
> you will cancel the membership before ever paying anything.
>
> Is this morally wrong? If not, which differing aspect changes the morality
> of the situation?

there ain't no right! ain't no wrong now, ain't no right. only pleasure
and pain.

mo_ntresor

--- 

[BillB]

On 4/11/2012 8:28 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:
> Everyone, except complete degenerates like Dutch, recognize that buying a
> camera for one-time use and returning it later is wrong. Beldim even spoke
> up and gave personal insight from his minimum wage overnight job at the
> Best Buy in the middle of the ghetto, something I think we all appreciate
> mostly because he wasn't calling anyone a shithead.
>
> So how about this - you want to check your credit score. Contrary to
> common misconception, you can check your credit *report* for free, but not
> your credit *score.* You sign up for a "10 day free trial" with a company
> for the sole purpose of checking your credit score, knowing full well that
> you will cancel the membership before ever paying anything.
>
> Is this morally wrong? If not, which differing aspect changes the morality
> of the situation?

Major difference between the two scenarios.

If you asked the CEO of the credit company of he minded if you try the
service even though you had no intention of buying, he would say
"absolutely not!" Actually, you don't even have to ask him, because
it's spelled out in the offer (free trial).

If you asked the CEO of Best Buy if he minds if you buy shit with no
intention of keeping it, but to use it a few times and return it, he'd
think you were crazy and have security remove you from the building.

The "user" has no fraudulent intent in the first example, but has
fraudulent intent in the second example.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

"Jason Pawloski" <a67...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:3nuh59x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> Everyone, except complete degenerates like Dutch, recognize that buying a
> camera for one-time use and returning it later is wrong. Beldim even spoke
> up and gave personal insight from his minimum wage overnight job at the
> Best Buy in the middle of the ghetto, something I think we all appreciate
> mostly because he wasn't calling anyone a shithead.

About the only trues statement in the paragraph above is about the lack of
"Shithead".
How deep in the beer keg are you?

[Will in New Haven]

On Apr 12, 3:07 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid> wrote

>
> > Everyone, except complete degenerates like Dutch, recognize that buying a
> > camera for one-time use and returning it later is wrong.
>
> I know its wrong, just not wrong enough to prevent me from doing it if I had
> no better option, which hasn't happened yet.

By _that_ definition killing your girlfriend's husband isn't wrong. Or
just not wrong enough to keep you from doing it. Or if your nineteen
and need a few bucks, robbing a gas station isn't wrong. It isn't as
if I, I mean the kid who robbed the gas station, had to shoot anyone.

>
> Its probably wrong to spend all the money I do on non-essentials like kitty
> litter when people all over the world are desperate and starving, but c'est
> la vie. Morality is a messy business.

That's true.

--
Will in New Haven

[Dutch]

"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:2b478fdf-7161-477c...@12g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> On Apr 12, 3:07 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid> wrote
>>
>> > Everyone, except complete degenerates like Dutch, recognize that buying
>> > a
>> > camera for one-time use and returning it later is wrong.
>>
>> I know its wrong, just not wrong enough to prevent me from doing it if I
>> had
>> no better option, which hasn't happened yet.
>
> By _that_ definition killing your girlfriend's husband isn't wrong.

That doesn't follow. Some things are "wrong enough" to never do by their
very nature.

> just not wrong enough to keep you from doing it. Or if your nineteen
> and need a few bucks, robbing a gas station isn't wrong. It isn't as
> if I, I mean the kid who robbed the gas station, had to shoot anyone.
>
>>
>> Its probably wrong to spend all the money I do on non-essentials like
>> kitty
>> litter when people all over the world are desperate and starving, but
>> c'est
>> la vie. Morality is a messy business.
>
> That's true.

Then maybe some people should stop thinking of it in such black and white
terms.

[phlash74]

Great, now you're bringing race into it, too?

[johnny_t]

On 4/11/12 8:28 PM, Jason Pawloski wrote:

> Is this morally wrong? If not, which differing aspect changes the morality
> of the situation?

No, because the moral compunction is on the side of the provider. They
are attempting to get you to provide money for something of limited to
no value with a come on, and the hope that you will simply forget to, or
find it too difficult to opt out or quit.

A similar question would be is it ok to get the free snorkeling trip if
you never ever intend to buy the time share on Kauai?

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:28:03 -0700, "Jason Pawloski"
<a67...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>Everyone, except complete degenerates like Dutch, recognize that buying a
>camera for one-time use and returning it later is wrong. Beldim even spoke
>up and gave personal insight from his minimum wage overnight job at the
>Best Buy in the middle of the ghetto, something I think we all appreciate
>mostly because he wasn't calling anyone a shithead.

But, as a Best Buy employee, Beldim has a stake in the issue.

[Omaha8_Beach]

On Apr 11, 10:28 pm, "Jason Pawloski" <a679...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> Everyone, except complete degenerates like Dutch, recognize that buying a
> camera for one-time use and returning it later is wrong. Beldim even spoke
> up and gave personal insight from his minimum wage overnight job at the
> Best Buy in the middle of the ghetto, something I think we all appreciate
> mostly because he wasn't calling anyone a shithead.
>
> So how about this - you want to check your credit score. Contrary to
> common misconception, you can check your credit *report* for free, but not
> your credit *score.* You sign up for a "10 day free trial" with a company
> for the sole purpose of checking your credit score, knowing full well that
> you will cancel the membership before ever paying anything.
>
> Is this morally wrong? If not, which differing aspect changes the morality
> of the situation?

The video camera example, in my opinion, is clearly immoral because
the transaction was not made in good faith. The return policy is
intended for customers who bought defective merchandise or were
honestly not satisfied with the product. So in my opinion, it is
understood when the video camera is bought, that if the product is not
defective and the customer is satisfied with the product, that the
customer will not return it. These understandings between the buyer
and the seller may not be written in stone, but I think most people
view transactions like the video camera purchase in this way.

The credit report is different for a few reasons. The main reason, in
my opinion, is that the policy is clearly advertised as a free trial
with no obligation, both parties are aware of this, and the seller
understands and even expects that the vast majority of customers will
cancel when the free trial ends.

The second reason, is that the free trial is actually for a product
that the customer is already entitled to (assuming the customer has
not requested a free credit report from the bureaus in the past
year). I've always felt that the free trial is just an attempt by one
of the credit bureaus to offer something 'free' to the customer just
to get the opportunity to be the first bureau to deliver this
information and at the same time establish a relationship with the
customer that may enable them to then sell services the customer may
not have been aware (this may not be a completely accurate view of it,
however). The credit report is in fact 'free', but it is free by law
and not the same way as a 'free trial' for Proactiv is free to the
customer.

Omaha8

[Dutch]

"Omaha8_Beach" <kenh...@gmail.com> wrote

> The video camera example, in my opinion, is clearly immoral because
> the transaction was not made in good faith. The return policy is
> intended for customers who bought defective merchandise or were
> honestly not satisfied with the product. So in my opinion, it is
> understood when the video camera is bought, that if the product is not
> defective and the customer is satisfied with the product, that the
> customer will not return it. These understandings between the buyer
> and the seller may not be written in stone, but I think most people
> view transactions like the video camera purchase in this way.

That's well stated, however the reality is that there are many orders of
magnitude more returns made by people who simply buy things impulsively, or
out of curiosity, with a credit card, aware that they have an out, than
there are of these isolated cases where someone has a particular one time
use for it. The former has to outnumber the latter by a wide margin. Based
on the total impact of all of these types of returns, including the stupid
and unthinking ones and the "honey take that back" ones, the *harm* caused
by returns of this specific kind is insignificant. As I said, I look for
open packages on the shelf because I like to help out stores in this regard.
It has never caused me a problem, and I get to have a closer look at what I
am buying before I buy it, that is the other side of the same coin. If I
were to do this "use once and return", and it has not come up for me, I
would consider that store to have established a solid goodwill credit in my
books. There is also the issue of using the store's rules to your best
advantage, as they set them up to attract you in the first place. I don't
think that is a major factor except that it made Pepe look a little silly.

[mo_ntresor]

shut up already, leech.

mo_ntresor

------ 

[Dutch]

"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q59m59x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

Or else what? pylon-man