Land Dwellers, Just Don't Understand

[gbanker]

for each action , isn't there an equal and opposite criticism?

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by Starbuck

This isn't really over-analyzing: it's simple philosophy 101 stuff, with some sociology thrown in. See what all that college tuition as done to me?!




I'm great at parties, too! lol

Yep.

Stop by sometime.

[Ocean Girl]

Re: Land dwellers are a funny lot.

My sister, a land dweller mountain girl, spent the night on OG last week. As we watched a beautiful Texas sunset, munched on Grilled shrimp, and sipped wine in the cockpit she mutters "gee, I kinda see why you like this". I have lived aboard for a total of 13 years and she finnaly gets it.

[dana-tenacity]

We cruised for years without refrigeration. On arrival somewhere we would take two big spoons to the nearest supermarket and buy a big bucket of ice cream, then sit on the side of the road and eat it.


One time after a hellish trip from Tahiti to Hawaii, a complete stranger walked down to the dock at Radio Bay and threw a bucket of ice cream into the cockpit, all he offered was "saw you come in. did that trip last year myself". I was to oshell shocked after 20 odd says upwind to thank him properly, hope he reads this.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Starbuck

... This isn't really over-analyzing: it's simple philosophy 101 stuff, with some sociology thrown in. See what all that college tuition as done to me?!

Maybe I'm hanging around Gord too much?

I'm great at parties, too! lol

I was trying to think of an inoffensive way of suggesting that very idea.

[barnakiel]

Originally Posted by tomdidit

... Some of the best outcomes have nothing to do with logic! ...

Like what?

;-)
b.

[canuck1955]

Originally Posted by Starbuck

Just for accuracy's sake, the deal was buy two, get one free, not two for one. That's the difference between a 50% discount on your total purchase, and a 33% discount. But the store still got double of your money than it might have, if you were of a mind to purchase only one half-gallon when you walked in.

Be that as it may, let me get this straight:......... nothing; as a matter of fact, it was a burden to you to have it.

I don't know what your true motivations were in the beginning, so I can't say. Only you can. This could have been a slightly virtuous act; or, it could only have the appearance of virtue from the outside.

Fair Winds,
Jeff

I have a feeling I'll be piled on, but please, take a moment to consider the logic here first.

One in every crowd....
Greed would be getting the 3rd free and throwing it in the garbage...to hell with giving it to someone, they can get their own. Look for the silver lining, not the storm cloud....LOL

[Randy]

Star buck, do you think we really need a lesson in first year philosophy? How 'bout trying to get the drift of what jusdreaming is saying.

[Starbuck]

Gentlemen (and lady),

I pointed out that there are shades of virtue. That is not my opinion, but the consensus of the majority of ethical thinkers.

I called JDreaming's act a good act. I gave him what I think is his due.

I gave some background discussion about intentions being important to the meaning of virtuous acts.

And I suggested, but did not state, that our motives are often not as pure as we might think much of the time; that our own egos and desire to pamper the same often cause us to magnify the "goodness" of our acts in our own minds. I know I fall into that category. But I never leveled such an accusation against the original poster. As a matter of fact, I took pains not to.

For which of these deeds do you wish to stone me? I suspect it is the last.

I'm not moralizing, Randy, so you can put that paintbrush away. My comments have been level, even-handed, neutral and non-assumptive. And dispassionate, which is not true of some others' comments.

If you want to take issue with a particular point I've made, I'll be happy to discuss it with you in a spirit of collegiality. But I don't want to fight with anyone. I have other hobbies. Would you all feel better if I just agreed with you?

Here's my first real opinion of the thread: people largely don't think clearly and carefully about these topics, but I find them interesting and worthy of discussion.

Here's my second opinion: feeling is not the same as thinking.

Fair Winds,
Jeff

P.S.—
Canuck: I disagree with your definitions of greed. Greed is the emotion that would cause you to go for the offer without thinking it through (something JDreaming actually did: think it through), but what you're describing is probably better defined as spite or pride ("I'd rather throw it away than admit I can't use it and spent double what I intended in the first place"). That greed is why I come home from Costco with a ten-gallon jar of olives ("But Honey, that's only point-three cents per olive!"), or a 1250-packet box of Sweet-n-Low that took me ten years (honest!) to use. lol

[barnakiel]

Gee. Twas just one ice-cream but the social response quite as if it were a Rolls.

And nobody even asks what taste the ice-cream was!!! For what if that 'lucky' person comes back home, unwraps the ice-cream and finds this is the taste they hate, they get bumps, or worse yet - they are allergic to ...

'Small matters that count.'

;-)))
b.

[Chief Engineer]

Personally...I am a standup philosopher (Comicus 33-1/3 A.D.)

[MikeinLA]

Originally Posted by Starbuck

Just for accuracy's sake, the deal was buy two, get one free, not two for one. That's the difference between a 50% discount on your total purchase, and a 33% discount. But the store still got double of your money than it might have, if you were of a mind to purchase only one half-gallon when you walked in.

Be that as it may, let me get this straight:

You bought two half-gallons of ice cream, which is all you can store, and got a third which you didn't pay for, but had no room to keep. It was going to go to waste in short order.

Then you gave away the free half-gallon to someone standing next to you.

This is a situation where your intention from the beginning is pivotal in determining whether or not this was an virtuous act. Here's the question that needs to be answered:

Did you plan to give the third container away when contemplating the sale, knowing you hadn't sufficient room, or did you only remember that after you had all three at the check-out counter?

If it was the former, you can be commended for blessing a stranger, though at no cost to you, which mitigates, but not entirely removes, the goodness of the act.

If the latter, no Brownie points for you: your greed (the motivation the sale was designed to tap into) got you into a fix, and you found a way to get rid of your problem after the store had your money. If that's the case, it wasn't about the stranger at all, but about you. Well, unless the woman in line behind you looked particularly needy for ice cream, which isn't likely, so it's probably safe to conclude that in the "giving" you were primarily benefiting yourself by solving a problem (the now softening third container) that your own short-sightedness got you into. You wound up looking generous, but that container cost you nothing; as a matter of fact, it was a burden to you to have it.

I don't know what your true motivations were in the beginning, so I can't say. Only you can. This could have been a slightly virtuous act; or, it could only have the appearance of virtue from the outside.

Fair Winds,
Jeff

I have a feeling I'll be piled on, but please, take a moment to consider the logic here first.

I'm completely surprised! Why did my ex-wife change her name to "Jeff" ?

Hmmm...

Mike

[speakeasy]

Deserve suggests a just recompense for actions, or fitting regard based on achieved status or inherent worth. Put simply, one must do something to be deserving of a reward or punishment.

I am very happy that you and the ice cream problem came together. I agree it is important to understand motivation to get clear on the good.

JusDreaming you did the right thing. For what motivation I'm not qualified to judge. However, it shows an understanding, overt or subconscious, that the corporations are out to drain each and every drop of financial blood you or any of us possess. They aren't bad people, these corporate executives. They love their grandkids. But their mandate, their very jobs depend upon their ignoring any criteria of success that does not start with getting every dollar from every consumer that is humanly, not humanely, possible. So letting them pay for the extra half gallon that gets donated to one deemed deserving (One without is another definition! ) for whatever reason, raises the level of ethical action in the world.

[barnakiel]

The motivation is only one half in getting clear on the good. The outcome is the other half.

And then there is the greenhouse effect - the ice is melting, the desperate 'lucky' owner of the third part of the ice is rushing home, they cross the street, untimely, there is the car, the black Dodge Ram, approaching fast ... Our victim tries to dodge the Dodge, but it is too little, too late. Their last thought flashes: 'bloody cruisers' ...!!!

;-)))
b

;-)
b.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

While in Mexico, we caught a 50" Dorado, filleted it, and we knew we couldn't fit all of it into our fridge, so we gave away at least half of it at the next anchorage that afternoon. S.O.P. for cruisers. What goes around...

I once had the same problem with a halibut. The rule was, you could have all you wanted, but you had to take at least a kilo.
Nothing worse that trying to squeeze a 20-kilo fish into an 80 liter freezer.