NPR Reports: REI vs L.L. Bean Return Policy

Nm

Oh, come on, Max- you're picking semantic nits. Well, actually not even that- you're just doing EXACTLY what you just accused me of- reading what you want me to say rather than what I said. "They are wrong to do that" means "they have just committed a wrong", and NOT "they are evil people."

So, where am I saying that these people are evil for abusing the return policy? Thay are wrong, yes, I'll say that. What is with this fear of having an opinion on your part? And, yes, eventually you can make the "jump" from judging an act to judging a person. (We do have a justice system, after all.) I just happen to not be doing that here.

"Almost every religion in the world is about the absolution of sin. To err is human!"

Wow. What was that I said about redemption, again?

"It's just below your insistence that I spit it out."

If it was I apologize- I must have missed it in all of the dross. But that is still nothing but waffling. "Not the building block of a moral person" is different from committing on whether an act is moral or immoral. Commit. Don't fear it.

EDIT- by the way, the Antichrist comment a while back wasn't directed at you- it was direct quote of eric.

Hi Max,

Well enlightenment is a big can of worms… There is a lot i agree with and respect about Buddhist belief systems, and having been involved with meditation for a long time i've met a lot of practicing Buddhists–many of whom i have a lot of respect for. When i was much younger, i spent a lot of time delving into Eastern based belief systems.

I've come to realize that every organized belief system currently on this planet, has both truth and not truth in it, and the Eastern ones are not an exception to this.

I don't speak from a place of indoctrination of dogmas and beliefs, but rather of livingness/experience and intuition and being led from internal guidance.

I know of only one teacher who came to this earth in physical human form, who was truly and fully "enlightened" (because he was/is an open, pure channel for pure unconditional, universal Love), and having had some experiences with that one, and knowing the depth of his Love and joy, and yet also empathic suffering for ours, i would say your Buddhist friend has some good points, but also still a lot to learn (actually remember is more accurate) and needs to step out of organized belief systems if he ever wants to fully free himself. There are a lot of golden cages out there.

When we align ourselves to that which is creative, constructive, and life in it's very essence, a natural effect or reaction is joy and at peaceness, especially in the more consistent sense. It's as simple as that. Like attracts and begets Like. Real happinenss or rather joy (the internally consistent, not dependent on things and conditions outside self) is a symptom of choosing and living life well.

When we choose selfishness and fear, we suffer, because it's not part of our source and core nature. The goal is not to remove or repress emotions, our emotions and our feeling sense is a very important part of our automatic feedback system. It's actually very important to pay attention to our feelings and figure out the reasons why we are feeling this or that. Sometimes it comes from inside and something we're being influenced from without.

Speaking of your friend, it could be that he comes from a past or pattern (yes, i believe in other lives because of some experiences i've had) of emotional extremes and this lifetime it was necessary for him to focus more on balance and equanimity in ones emotions, and the Buddhist vehicle and path is a good way to gain some of that. However, that slice of pie, is not the whole pie. There are times to be water and air, and there times to be earth or even fire. My teacher knew and lived this perfectly. He sometimes wept, occasionally expressed anger, and often he was just quiet, observing, calm, and gentle. But the intent of interaction was always the same, that of helpfulness and of caring more about the Whole than his little self, wants, desires.

But I'm willing to put my foot down and commit when something is clearly wrong.

lets STOMP em all into the ground !!!

wait … its the intrawebs, nothing will happen anyways … im just preaching to feel "morally" superior !!!

That said, many of these abusers I am talking about are doing this PRECISELY because they are trying to "get over", and they will not be influenced by some dude in the customer service line behind them trying to engage them.

"these" darn "abusers" … i mean really they wont "listen" anyways … so ill just rant and rave on BPL about em

of all the "reprehensible" things going on in the world … this is what i "care" about

i dont think this is even first world problems anymore … lets call it BPL problems

;)

Justin,

A good message, and well spoken. I like your style.

"I would call you a moral absolutist, Dean, because nearly every post in this thread you've made supports it."

That's a wonderful no-true-Scotsman argument. "IF I can't sway your opinion THEN it must be due to some inherent defect in YOU- to whit, you are a moral absolutist."

No, Max, it just means that you have made a poor argument.

Morgan and I are going out for coffee. I'll be back tonight. Ciao, BPL

Eric-

While I recognize that you were responding to Dean, I was the one who wrote the comment re moral absolutism. I do agree with Dean that I'm not a pure absolutist- sometimes there are mitigating circumstances so strong that it makes what would otherwise be a horribly wrong act that makes it understandable and even ok. I'll grant that. But I think you misunderstand people like myself when you accuse us of saying an act is wrong in order to feel "morally superior". That's not how I feel at all. I just have a very black and white view of the world. Some things are good. Some are bad. Some things are right. Some are wrong. And you have to take a stand for something.

Imagine if enough Germans had stood against Hitler and told him that the Holocaust was wrong and they wouldn't condone it? That's an extreme example, I know, and I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's law and certainly am not calling anyone here a nazi. My point is merely that silence is the same as permission (or approval) and someone who truly thinks something is wrong should stand up and say so. It's not the easy path you seem to think ("Oh, how superior I feel now!")because generally people that stand up for something are in the minority and face ridicule or worse.

In that same vein, there's irony that we're all debating the morality of the dubious returns to REI now…when it's too late. Apparently people should have stood against it before REI changed its policy so that it would not have had to.

"You condemned the act, and then refused to judge every unknown person based upon it because you understood that it was incorrect to do so."

Did you see what YOU just did- arguing for something that I myself have already supported? I believe in mitigation. I would say that it is a moral act to steal money to save a child's life. (Not legal, but then legality and morality are not synonymous, are they?)

We're (well, at least I am) talking in generalities, without off-the-wall "what if Jupiter and mars are in ascension, and the second coming of Christ just happened in Azerbaijan" conditional B.S.

So…

I maintain that it is perfectly appropriate to judge an act and even, given enough evidence, a person. As I have said, this is not to say that a person who has committed many bad acts is irredeemable.

Commit. Moral or immoral? Well, I guessI have to add "or neutral"? That's an option.

Ah, Dean, even moral absolutists fall in their own traps.
Is killing another person wrong? Always?
Than you must agree with me that the death penalty is wrong, not to mention barbaric and absurd.

Here. Now we can move on to abortion and religion. Gear, as it all applies to gear- please.

"Yes, peace, love, and all that. Hurray. Go snuggle up to Jeffrey Dahlmer and bring him into the fold. (Another reductio, but there you have it.) "

Wtf?

"Imagine if enough Germans had stood against Hitler and told him that the Holocaust was wrong and they wouldn't condone it? That's an extreme example, I know, and I'm not trying to invoke Godwin's law and certainly am not calling anyone here a nazi. My point is merely that silence is the same as permission (or approval) and someone who truly thinks something is wrong should stand up and say so. It's not the easy path you seem to think ("Oh, how superior I feel now!")because generally people that stand up for something are in the minority and face ridicule or worse."

Yes, Dena, thank you!

I find it immensely puerile when people (well, like Max and Eric) jump to the self-serving conclusion that whenever someone is willing to be critical of another that they are somehow doing so for some sort of pathological psychological reason involving feeling better about themselves by belittling others. When, in fact, they merely have a little backbone.

i just knew we had to go there … this thread is now complete with der fuhrer !!!

its modern society on the intrawebs … just like the comments in those "rescue" stories …

"dont go out and hike, its dangerous"

"your own fault if you fell and broke a leg"

"idiot hikers, why do i need to pay for your rescue, you are taking away my money"

"what, you didnt bring the 10 essentials, what an idiot, you should be charge for scamming the system"

i mean really we gotta put our foot down on all these people who just go out, press the big red buttton on their spot and expect to be rescued

gotta take a stand somewhere … after all it does put other peoples lives at risk … not to mention tax dollars

now that REI is kaput … lets go after ll bean SCAMMERS shall we now

;)

"Is killing another person wrong? Always? "

Ah, no.

Remember, I mentioned mitigating circumstance, right? Did you miss that?

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make… but it was at least amusing.

OTOH:

"Wtf?"

Yeah, I got frustrated by that non-sequitur. Sorry. More lucidly my point is: some people don't respond to "love and understanding."

Keep up the good work, Eric. :-|

Whee-ow! We've really got YOU riled, don't we, eric?

Hey, judgments can be wrong. I'll grant that. Be we can't avoid making ANY judgments. That's nothing but moral cowardice.

""Is killing another person wrong? Always? "

Ah, no.

Remember, I mentioned mitigating circumstance, right? Did you miss that?

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make… but it was at least amusing.

OTOH:

"Wtf?"

Yeah, I got frustrated by that non-sequitur. Sorry. More lucidly my point is: some people don't respond to "love and understanding."
"

Well you just made my point.
Mitigating circumstances……glad I amused you.

I find it immensely puerile when people (well, like Max and Eric) jump to the self-serving conclusion that whenever someone is willing to be critical of another that they are somehow doing so for some sort of pathological psychological reason involving feeling better about themselves by belittling others. When, in fact, they merely have a little backbone.

sure gotta have real "backbone" to scream out loud on the intrawebs about the "reprehensible" behavior of "seeming open minded" about something that person has never done

go stand up and show some backbone like a REAL MAN … on BPL no less

i mean all these pathological reprehensible backboneless puerile intraweb folks who are open minded

as to "belittleling" … i thing your above post and the below one takes the cake there

;)

Yes, I read your post about how you never abused REIs policy- don't get defensive again. But you do sure seem damned "open minded" of some very reprehensible behaviors.

No, Katharina, I didn't make your point. I made MY point. That's what you're not getting.

Seriously, I know I'm starting to get snippy (and I'm trying to rein it in) but exactly what point WERE you trying to make. I'm not kidding- I don't get it. I do not understand what that post had to do in any way with what we were discussing. I think it was something about moral relativism vs absolutism, but I had just said that I'm not a moral absolutist. Or did you miss that? Rr did our posts cross in the night or something? (That seems likely- go back and read mine.) Were you actually trying to respond to Dena and mixed us up? What?

What I AM is "willing to have an opinion", rather than a moral coward.

Yee-haw! You go cowboy!

That was an INCREDIBLE display. Truly.

You have no idea who I am, Eric. Really. So come down off your high horse. And you're getting repetitive. And clearly just trolling, at this point.

How about you actually, y'know, address my point? That you and Max (I think?) accused Dena and I of somehow sitting on high pointing fingers and passing judgments to boost or own feeling of superiority? Hmm?

Which is, again, incredibly hippocritical since you two could easily be accused of the same.

Wow, this IS getting fun! Any mods want to stop this? Because I think Eric's about to rupture something.

superiority?

hmmmmmmm …

lets see there

quote exhibit #1

Yes, I read your post about how you never abused REIs policy- don't get defensive again. But you do sure seem damned "open minded" of some very reprehensible behaviors.

quote exhibit #2

I find it immensely puerile when people (well, like Max and Eric) jump to the self-serving conclusion that whenever someone is willing to be critical of another that they are somehow doing so for some sort of pathological psychological reason involving feeling better about themselves by belittling others. When, in fact, they merely have a little backbone.

quote exhibit #3

What I AM is "willing to have an opinion", rather than a moral coward.

not feeling "superior" at all are ya now ..

but dont worry lets compare returning at REI to KILLING PEOPLE … maybe somebody will bring up a few stalin references now?

i do have to admit i feel a strange desire to club some baby seals occasionally as an evil pinniped flesh eating canadian

;)

BPL problems ….

Repititive? Hmm.

"Moral cowardice" is a term of art used in classes that I take. Perhaps it was a bad idea to use it among, er, laymen. So I MIGHT see how "exhibit #3" could confuse you. What that means is- one should not be unwilling to make a stand when faced with a wrong. Some things are just wrong. Dena's example is a classic albeit over-used example. And that's how I am interpreting this unwillingness to have an opinion on your and Max's parts. Merely opinion on MY part, of course.

EXhibit #1 and #2 puzzle me- what are you trying to prove? That I have opinions? that I think you and Max were making a juvenile ad hominem attack when you said that Dena and I are just trying to prop ourselves up by putting others down?

Guilty.

I mean, come on, man! I'm not in junior high.

But to get back on the hypocrisy motif- you are sure sounding smug, judgmental, and superior, there, Eric. And, of course, repetitive. Repetitive. Repetitive.

I'm not sure how, but this all got extremely acrimonious. So I'll tell you what- I'll sign off so that you can get your final shots in and feel better about yourself. Then, if we ever meet I'll give you a hug and a cookie.

Cheers

if we ever meet I'll give you a hug and a cookie.

NOOOOOOO !!!! … dont scam that cookie … the cookie monstah will go hungry !!!

honestly … i havent had this much fun on BPL in a LONG time

its been awhile since the nazis made their last BPL appearance

;)

"its been awhile since the nazis made their last BPL appearance"

Ok, in the interests of acknowledging humor I'll violate my recently stated intentions not to post again just long enough to admit that the nazi reference was a tactical error on Dena's part, even if she pre-empted accusations of Godwin…

But really, now I'm gone.

Really. :)