The Case of the Missing Wine

[Ed Anger]

Be advised any uninvited people on my property will be enslaved and sent to my corn farm.

[derspiess]

Be advised any uninvited people on my property will be enslaved and sent to my corn farm.

They'll steal your corn.

[Ed Anger]

Be advised any uninvited people on my property will be enslaved and sent to my corn farm.

They'll steal your corn.

20 lashes from the overseer then.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't agree that taking possession of things that are mis-delivered to your property is morally neutral. It's appealing, yes, but it's not morally neutral no matter how you dress it up in arguments of convenience and other people fucking up.

But I already had possession, I would agree that finding property somewhere and simply taking it would be wrong, but this property was in my physical possession through events outside my control.

[Jacob]

I don't agree that taking possession of things that are mis-delivered to your property is morally neutral. It's appealing, yes, but it's not morally neutral no matter how you dress it up in arguments of convenience and other people fucking up.

But I already had possession, I would agree that finding property somewhere and simply taking it would be wrong, but this property was in my physical possession through events outside my control.

Okay, "consuming" rather than "taking possession," or possibly "refusing to return to the rightful owner."

[crazy canuck]

I don't agree that taking possession of things that are mis-delivered to your property is morally neutral. It's appealing, yes, but it's not morally neutral no matter how you dress it up in arguments of convenience and other people fucking up.

But I already had possession, I would agree that finding property somewhere and simply taking it would be wrong, but this property was in my physical possession through events outside my control.

Otto, there is an important distinction between lawful and unlawful possession.  What you did is worse than finding property and claiming it as your own.  You knew the property belonged to someone else and took it as your own then lied about it to hide your misdeed.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm not talking about the law, though.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Okay, "consuming" rather than "taking possession," or possibly "refusing to return to the rightful owner."

I agreed I should have given it back when the old man showed up. But I don't believe drinking the wine was wrong. What if FedEx had never showed back up? And neither had the old man? At some point you have to assume the man received a re-shipment from FedEx since they have to eat the loss of the wine. Ten years from now would it still be wrong to uncork a bottle had no one ever came to claim it?

[crazy canuck]

I'm not talking about the law, though.

No, you are trying to create an artificial justification for your unlawful and unethical acts.  You knew what you were doing was wrong but you did it anyway and you are now engaged in a ex post facto justification exercise.

[garbon]

Okay, "consuming" rather than "taking possession," or possibly "refusing to return to the rightful owner."

I agreed I should have given it back when the old man showed up. But I don't believe drinking the wine was wrong. What if FedEx had never showed back up? And neither had the old man? At some point you have to assume the man received a re-shipment from FedEx since they have to eat the loss of the wine. Ten years from now would it still be wrong to uncork a bottle had no one ever came to claim it?

1 week = never? Besides, you noted that you even knew where the man lived but it was too far for you to be bothered to drive.

I think getting enjoyment (aka drinking the wine) from something that isn't yours and you even know how to reach out to the person who owns it is wrong.

[sbr]

Okay, "consuming" rather than "taking possession," or possibly "refusing to return to the rightful owner."

I agreed I should have given it back when the old man showed up. But I don't believe drinking the wine was wrong. What if FedEx had never showed back up? And neither had the old man? At some point you have to assume the man received a re-shipment from FedEx since they have to eat the loss of the wine. Ten years from now would it still be wrong to uncork a bottle had no one ever came to claim it?

1 week = never? Besides, you noted that you even knew where the man lived but it was too far for you to be bothered to drive.

I think getting enjoyment (aka drinking the wine) from something that isn't yours and you even know how to reach out to the person who owns it is wrong.

What if he didn't like the wine?

[garbon]

Okay, "consuming" rather than "taking possession," or possibly "refusing to return to the rightful owner."

I agreed I should have given it back when the old man showed up. But I don't believe drinking the wine was wrong. What if FedEx had never showed back up? And neither had the old man? At some point you have to assume the man received a re-shipment from FedEx since they have to eat the loss of the wine. Ten years from now would it still be wrong to uncork a bottle had no one ever came to claim it?

1 week = never? Besides, you noted that you even knew where the man lived but it was too far for you to be bothered to drive.

I think getting enjoyment (aka drinking the wine) from something that isn't yours and you even know how to reach out to the person who owns it is wrong.

What if he didn't like the wine?

It would still be wrong* but wouldn't rankle me as much.

*But yes, I guess that really boils it down to - treating the object as if it was yours even though you had it within your means to give it back. Then compounded by denying that you have it when the owner comes looking.

[Martinus]

I feel sorry for Otto. He acted on a selfish (but relatively harmless) impulse and sought validation for his remorse. But then it's Languish and if there is a point to be driven home about someone being in the wrong, it will be driven home.

[garbon]

I feel sorry for Otto. He acted on a selfish (but relatively harmless) impulse and sought validation for his remorse. But then it's Languish and if there is a point to be driven home about someone being in the wrong, it will be driven home.

He still keeps trying to put up a defense of his actions.

[Martinus]

I feel sorry for Otto. He acted on a selfish (but relatively harmless) impulse and sought validation for his remorse. But then it's Languish and if there is a point to be driven home about someone being in the wrong, it will be driven home.

He still keeps trying to put up a defense of his actions.

Of course. Most people have an ego.