Unethical ways to save money

[PoutineLover]

People could use the Jewish tradition of putting stones on graves when they visit instead of flowers. Much more environmentally friendly, and serves basically the same purpose. It's also cheaper than buying flowers.
But then would it be unethical to take a stone off someone else's grave to put on the one you are visiting?

[beltim]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

[GuitarStv]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

[beltim]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

Stupid to you, sure.  My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition.  You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you.  But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.

[Davnasty]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

But tradition in turn provides an emotional gain to the living.

Lots of things provide emotional gain without any tangible justification. We could extend your reasoning to say that any action for pleasure (emotional gain) that uses up resources is unethical. And yes, I do realize your argument is an extension of my own so I'm not saying you're wrong. I think I'm just agreeing that ethics are weird...

[GuitarStv]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

Stupid to you, sure.  My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition.  You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you.  But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.

The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition.  It's important to question foolish traditions.

[SwordGuy]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

Stupid to you, sure.  My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition.  You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you.  But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.

The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition.  It's important to question foolish traditions.

Discussing the validity of traditions is fine.   

Stealing flowers from someone's grave, flowers that someone put there because it meant something to them to do so, is not "discussion".  It's theft and, what's worse, it can be emotionally hurtful theft.

Putting flowers with departed ones goes back at least to Neanderthal times, so, just maybe, there's a good reason for it still being around.

Hell, why bury people anyway?  Why not toss their unused bodies into the fields to feed wild animals and decompose into fertilizer if we want to discuss rational use of resources.     But if someone chose to bury a loved one and mark their final resting place with a stone commemorating their life, I'm good with it.   And I'm equally good with them kicking the living shit out of someone they find vandalizing that grave, too.     Might be confusing on the ethics front but it's a damned good way to teach the value of having better manners to those who have chosen otherwise.

[GuitarStv]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

Stupid to you, sure.  My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition.  You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you.  But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.

The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition.  It's important to question foolish traditions.

Discussing the validity of traditions is fine.   

Stealing flowers from someone's grave, flowers that someone put there because it meant something to them to do so, is not "discussion".  It's theft and, what's worse, it can be emotionally hurtful theft.

Taking flowers from a grave can lead to hurt feelings of the person who dumped them there in the first place finds out.  If they don't, then there really is no harm done, is there?  I mean, besides the environmental harm done by putting the flowers there to begin with.

Putting flowers with departed ones goes back at least to Neanderthal times, so, just maybe, there's a good reason for it still being around.

My understanding was that it started with the Greeks, who planted flowers on the graves of dead warriors.  When the flowers took root and bloomed it was an indication that the warrior was doing well in the afterlife.

Hell, why bury people anyway?  Why not toss their unused bodies into the fields to feed wild animals and decompose into fertilizer if we want to discuss rational use of resources.     But if someone chose to bury a loved one and mark their final resting place with a stone commemorating their life, I'm good with it.

FWIW, I'm pretty anti-burial too.  It's a waste of land, waste of money, and pumping a corpse full of chemicals to slow natural decay doesn't make any kind of sense.

[DeniseNJ]

FWIW, I'm pretty anti-burial too.  It's a waste of land, waste of money, and pumping a corpse full of chemicals to slow natural decay doesn't make any kind of sense.

Agree.  It's unethical to prey on bereaved family members to pony up 20K to bury a DEAD body.  There's growing industry around "green" burials, where they put you in a pine box and stick you 3 feet down in a dedicated field with trees and wild flowers, etc.  Getting off topic but thought I'd share.

[merula]

We interrupt this discussion of flower theft for unscheduled archaeological pedantry.

Putting flowers with departed ones goes back at least to Neanderthal times, so, just maybe, there's a good reason for it still being around.

First, "Neanderthal times" could imply that the post-burial recognition of a grave site was a practice of Homo neanderthalensis, which is not supported by the archaeological record at this time. I'll assume instead that what was meant was instead "post-burial recognition of a grave site was a practice by Homo sapiens during the time they coexisted with Neanderthals", i.e. from emergence of archaic modern humans ~250,000 years ago to the extinction of Neanderthals ~40,000 years ago.

Second, the practice of leaving flowers or other goods at a grave at the time of burial and leaving them at a grave post-burial are distinct cultural practices. The former predates Homo sapiens as a species and there is evidence of Neanderthal burials with apparent grave goods. However, the latter has only been found in post-nomadic societies of anatomically modern humans. The earliest grave markers are found 15,000 years ago, which would seem to be the early bound as it'd be difficult to leave anything on an entirely unmarked grave. There is not specific evidence of flowers being left on those early grave markers, though that would be extraordinarily difficult to detect in the archaeological record.

Thank you for your patience with this interruption.

[beltim]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

Stupid to you, sure.  My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition.  You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you.  But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.

The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition.  It's important to question foolish traditions.

Really?  What's your basis for this?

[dragoncar]

Putting flowers with departed ones goes back at least to Neanderthal times, so, just maybe, there's a good reason for it still being around

It’s likely the only thing keeping the supernatural forces at bay.  There are still those on this earth who follow the Old Ways.

[SwordGuy]

We interrupt this discussion of flower theft for unscheduled archaeological pedantry.

Putting flowers with departed ones goes back at least to Neanderthal times, so, just maybe, there's a good reason for it still being around.

First, "Neanderthal times" could imply that the post-burial recognition of a grave site was a practice of Homo neanderthalensis, which is not supported by the archaeological record at this time. I'll assume instead that what was meant was instead "post-burial recognition of a grave site was a practice by Homo sapiens during the time they coexisted with Neanderthals", i.e. from emergence of archaic modern humans ~250,000 years ago to the extinction of Neanderthals ~40,000 years ago.

Second, the practice of leaving flowers or other goods at a grave at the time of burial and leaving them at a grave post-burial are distinct cultural practices. The former predates Homo sapiens as a species and there is evidence of Neanderthal burials with apparent grave goods. However, the latter has only been found in post-nomadic societies of anatomically modern humans. The earliest grave markers are found 15,000 years ago, which would seem to be the early bound as it'd be difficult to leave anything on an entirely unmarked grave. There is not specific evidence of flowers being left on those early grave markers, though that would be extraordinarily difficult to detect in the archaeological record.

Thank you for your patience with this interruption.

Neanderthals and flowers on the burials

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/new-remains-discovered-site-famous-neanderthal-flower-burial

[K-ice]

Touch้!

[force majeure]

Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.

[merula]

Neanderthals and flowers on the burials

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/new-remains-discovered-site-famous-neanderthal-flower-burial

From article:
One skeleton had so many injuries that he likely needed help to survive, and another had been dusted with pollen, suggesting someone had laid flowers at the burial.

From my post:
The practice of leaving flowers or other goods at a grave at the time of burial and leaving them at a grave post-burial are distinct cultural practices. The former predates Homo sapiens as a species and there is evidence of Neanderthal burials with apparent grave goods.

[Davnasty]

Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.

What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?

[WSUCoug1994]

I worked at a box store when I was in high school.  There was a guy who would regularly come in, pick up a product (usually an expensive electronic item) and simply walk to the customer service/returns department.  He would request to return the item, they would request the receipt, he would claim he lost it and then they would give him store credit since he didn't have a receipt.  The worst case scenario is they wouldn't give him credit and he would walk out the door with the item.

This was 20 years ago and I think the stores are smarter but it was a pretty slick trick.  Eventually they figured it out and busted him but he was doing this all over town.

[SwordGuy]

I worked at a box store when I was in high school.  There was a guy who would regularly come in, pick up a product (usually an expensive electronic item) and simply walk to the customer service/returns department.  He would request to return the item, they would request the receipt, he would claim he lost it and then they would give him store credit since he didn't have a receipt.  The worst case scenario is they wouldn't give him credit and he would walk out the door with the item.

This was 20 years ago and I think the stores are smarter but it was a pretty slick trick.  Eventually they figured it out and busted him but he was doing this all over town.

They caught a guy who worked in Bush's (II) White House doing that back when I was working in DC.   And the stores are smarter now.  They may know the serial numbers of the items that they've sold and not sold, for example.   Store video cameras are much more common.

[Milkshake]

Taking flowers from a grave can lead to hurt feelings of the person who dumped them there in the first place finds out.  If they don't, then there really is no harm done, is there?  I mean, besides the environmental harm done by putting the flowers there to begin with.

If your delivery driver steals a french fry from your meal bag, is that stealing? You'll never know if there was one more or less fry in there, so no harm done right? And arguing that they should've made their own french fries instead of having someone deliver them doesn't make it any less stealing.

Taking another's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it is stealing regardless of actual harm done.

I would also argue that the flowers aren't technically "abandoned", as generally the family purchases a plot in a cemetery making it their property.

[GuitarStv]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

Stupid to you, sure.  My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition.  You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you.  But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.

The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition.  It's important to question foolish traditions.

Really?  What's your basis for this?

Not all cultures in history have left flowers at grave sites (in fact, many don't even bury their dead).  If you lived in one of these cultures, you would not value leaving flowers at a grave site.  Ergo, there exist other ways to get over the death of someone / honor their life other than dumping some dead flowers over a hole their body is decomposing in.

[DadJokes]

I worked at a box store when I was in high school.  There was a guy who would regularly come in, pick up a product (usually an expensive electronic item) and simply walk to the customer service/returns department.  He would request to return the item, they would request the receipt, he would claim he lost it and then they would give him store credit since he didn't have a receipt.  The worst case scenario is they wouldn't give him credit and he would walk out the door with the item.

This was 20 years ago and I think the stores are smarter but it was a pretty slick trick.  Eventually they figured it out and busted him but he was doing this all over town.

That happened all the time at the convenience store I worked at as a teenager. There was a rack of cheap sunglasses by the door. People would grab sunglasses and bring them to the counter asking for a refund. Unless we physically saw them steal the glasses, the only thing we could do without a receipt was offer to let them change the glasses out for another pair.

[Davnasty]

Taking flowers from a grave can lead to hurt feelings of the person who dumped them there in the first place finds out.  If they don't, then there really is no harm done, is there?  I mean, besides the environmental harm done by putting the flowers there to begin with.

If your delivery driver steals a french fry from your meal bag, is that stealing? You'll never know if there was one more or less fry in there, so no harm done right? And arguing that they should've made their own french fries instead of having someone deliver them doesn't make it any less stealing.

Taking another's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it is stealing regardless of actual harm done.

I would also argue that the flowers aren't technically "abandoned", as generally the family purchases a plot in a cemetery making it their property.

Not disagreeing with the rest of this, but in this analogy there is an impact on the customer whether they know it or not. They will get 49 fries instead of 50. This is not the same as the flower scenario where taking the flowers has no impact (again, assuming they never find out).

[GuitarStv]

Taking flowers from a grave can lead to hurt feelings of the person who dumped them there in the first place finds out.  If they don't, then there really is no harm done, is there?  I mean, besides the environmental harm done by putting the flowers there to begin with.

If your delivery driver steals a french fry from your meal bag, is that stealing? You'll never know if there was one more or less fry in there, so no harm done right? And arguing that they should've made their own french fries instead of having someone deliver them doesn't make it any less stealing.

Taking another's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it is stealing regardless of actual harm done.

I would also argue that the flowers aren't technically "abandoned", as generally the family purchases a plot in a cemetery making it their property.

Stealing fries is definitely stealing.  (Taking flowers from the grave site is stealing too.  I wasn't arguing that it isn't.)  But from an ethical standpoint, stealing isn't always wrong.  I mean, if I take perfectly edible food from a dumpster behind a restaurant . . . I'm stealing.  But I wouldn't view it as unethical at all.  Would you?

My argument was that ethically, I'd say that the person who buys the flowers is doing a greater disservice to the world than the person who steals the flowers from the grave site.  (With the caveat that the theft occurs without the knowledge of the person who provided the flowers.)

[Davnasty]

Taking flowers from a grave can lead to hurt feelings of the person who dumped them there in the first place finds out.  If they don't, then there really is no harm done, is there?  I mean, besides the environmental harm done by putting the flowers there to begin with.

If your delivery driver steals a french fry from your meal bag, is that stealing? You'll never know if there was one more or less fry in there, so no harm done right? And arguing that they should've made their own french fries instead of having someone deliver them doesn't make it any less stealing.

Taking another's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it is stealing regardless of actual harm done.

I would also argue that the flowers aren't technically "abandoned", as generally the family purchases a plot in a cemetery making it their property.

Stealing fries is definitely stealing.  (Taking flowers from the grave site is stealing too.  I wasn't arguing that it isn't.)  But from an ethical standpoint, stealing isn't always wrong.  I mean, if I take perfectly edible food from a dumpster behind a restaurant . . . I'm stealing.  But I wouldn't view it as unethical at all.  Would you?

My argument was that ethically, I'd say that the person who buys the flowers is doing a greater disservice to the world than the person who steals the flowers from the grave site.  (With the caveat that the theft occurs without the knowledge of the person who provided the flowers.)

I don't believe taking from dumpsters is considered stealing but it may depend on location. Most parts of the US it is not. However if the dumpster is on private property and you don't have the owner's permission to be there you would be trespassing.

ETA: https://freegan.info/what-is-a-freegan/freegan-practices/urban-foraging/diving-and-the-law/

[secondcor521]

Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.

What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?

Most wishing fountains are on public property and the coins that people toss in are typically collected and the amount donated to a charity.

So this person is relying on the public's erroneous but reasonable assumption that this particular fountain is public and not private and that the proceeds are going to charity and not to a private individual.

[SwordGuy]

Seems pretty clear that if the wishing well is in someone's front yard it's theirs and not the public's.

And I've never met a single person in my life who puts a coin in their hand and, just before tossing it into a wishing well, stops and says, "Gee, I wonder who will harvest this coin, so I won't toss in my coin until I know."

[dragoncar]

Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.

What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?

This is unethical because it deprives the fountain fairies of their payment for granting the wishes

[Dicey]

Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.

What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?

This is unethical because it deprives the fountain fairies of their payment for granting the wishes

Maybe the owner of the fountain grants their wishes. Or prays for the granting of their wishes. Or thinks of them and their wishes whilst he's raising a pint at his favorite pub, paid for with their coins. I hope it's the latter.

[dragoncar]

Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.

What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?

This is unethical because it deprives the fountain fairies of their payment for granting the wishes

Maybe the owner of the fountain grants their wishes. Or prays for the granting of their wishes. Or thinks of them and their wishes whilst he's raising a pint at his favorite pub, paid for with their coins. I hope it's the latter.

Maybe the money grants the beer wishes of the owner

[Smokystache]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

Stupid to you, sure.  My point is that it's not stupid to them, regardless of whether or not it's done because of tradition.  You say there's no gain - and I believe that there's no gain to you.  But you're dismissing real value to other people because you think you know their minds better than they do.

The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition.  It's important to question foolish traditions.

Really?  What's your basis for this?

Not all cultures in history have left flowers at grave sites (in fact, many don't even bury their dead).  If you lived in one of these cultures, you would not value leaving flowers at a grave site.  Ergo, there exist other ways to get over the death of someone / honor their life other than dumping some dead flowers over a hole their body is decomposing in.

Seems like your argument is that if not every culture in all times finds a practice/ritual helpful, then it is "stupid" or "worthless"? 

And by the way, there are very, very few cultures/groups that don't bury or entomb their dead. I've heard of a small group in the Himalayas that leave the deceased out for vultures to pick apart  - but that is clearly a tiny minority of the world population.

I actually work at a cemetery and read books about this stuff.

[beltim]

The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition.  It's important to question foolish traditions.

Really?  What's your basis for this?

Not all cultures in history have left flowers at grave sites (in fact, many don't even bury their dead).  If you lived in one of these cultures, you would not value leaving flowers at a grave site.  Ergo, there exist other ways to get over the death of someone / honor their life other than dumping some dead flowers over a hole their body is decomposing in.

Yes, there exist other ways to honor someone's life.  That doesn't mean anything regarding whether it has value or whether that value exists solely because of tradition.

[dragoncar]

The value that you're talking about exists solely because of tradition.  It's important to question foolish traditions.

Really?  What's your basis for this?

Not all cultures in history have left flowers at grave sites (in fact, many don't even bury their dead).  If you lived in one of these cultures, you would not value leaving flowers at a grave site.  Ergo, there exist other ways to get over the death of someone / honor their life other than dumping some dead flowers over a hole their body is decomposing in.

Yes, there exist other ways to honor someone's life.  That doesn't mean anything regarding whether it has value or whether that value exists solely because of tradition.

A fiddler on the roof...

Sounds crazy, no?

[Dicey]

^^I see what you did there.^^

[Milkshake]

Stealing fries is definitely stealing.  (Taking flowers from the grave site is stealing too.  I wasn't arguing that it isn't.)  But from an ethical standpoint, stealing isn't always wrong.  I mean, if I take perfectly edible food from a dumpster behind a restaurant . . . I'm stealing.  But I wouldn't view it as unethical at all.  Would you?

My argument was that ethically, I'd say that the person who buys the flowers is doing a greater disservice to the world than the person who steals the flowers from the grave site.  (With the caveat that the theft occurs without the knowledge of the person who provided the flowers.)

Fair enough.

Though, I would say that without seeing a receipt from where they purchased the flowers, one wouldn't know if they had gotten them from their personal cut flower garden (provides great benefit to local pollinators, at a negligible waste of resources) vs buying them from Environment Destroyers R Us. Without a "stalking first" caveat, this would be morally dubious at best.

Also, as a tongue in cheek response to "it won't affect the dead/the dead won't care", do we REALLY know that? Maybe this dead guy is the driver of the karma bus mentioned up thread...

[GuitarStv]

Also, as a tongue in cheek response to "it won't affect the dead/the dead won't care", do we REALLY know that? Maybe this dead guy is the driver of the karma bus mentioned up thread...

There exists as much evidence for your theory as for the theory that placing flowers on a grave causes the dead to writhe in the worst agony and torment imaginable.  Stop torturing the poor souls!  :P

[A Fella from Stella]

Going to a brick and mortar store to check something out knowing u r buying it online. Especially if u use sales persons time.

Family guy clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6daEbA1jBXg

[A Fella from Stella]

For some reason, it is customary to take advantage of the "house" when you're gambling in a casino. Sometimes they will overpay you on a win, or make another mistake in your favor (such as incorrectly paying you when you really have lost). NEVER do you tell the dealer, "Wait a minute, you made a mistake -- you should not have paid me." Instead you quietly and quickly rake in the money, because once you've taken it the casino is no longer allowed to correct their mistake. This is the customary and expected behavior, and I've never felt any qualms about taking advantage of these situations when they happen. I just don't know why this is the case in casino gambling, other than it is obviously set up from the onset as a "you vs. them" situation. Any other business I would (and do) point out any mistake that is in my favor, as I would in a friendly poker game.

On 2 occasions I gave the excess back to the dealer. 1 time I did not and felt like it played into a losing streak.

[A Fella from Stella]

.................many of us enjoy a mustachian lifestyle on the backs of others and then pat our own backs for doing the right thing...........

hence, why I hate the Frugalwoods.

[MilesTeg]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

I'm not a highly emotional type, but calling leaving flowers at a grave useless and only done because 'tradition' is stone cold man. Like funerals, it's not to be of a benefit to the deceased, but to the living.

[GuitarStv]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

I'm not a highly emotional type, but calling leaving flowers at a grave useless and only done because 'tradition' is stone cold man. Like funerals, it's not to be of a benefit to the deceased, but to the living.

Right.  But the only reason it benefits the living is because of tradition.  Tradition tells these people that they should do it, so they feel better doing it.  The actual action doesn't matter, just the fact that something is being done to mark the passage of a loved one.  If the traditions was different they would do something else and get the same comfort.

[dragoncar]

Ethics are weird.

The energy cost of growing exotic flowers, culling the ones that don't look pretty, throwing out the ones that don't sell, powering the building that sells them (refridgeration, climate control, lights, etc.) and then transporting them to the grave site is substantial.  That's a lot of environmental damage for very little real gain.
…
But people tend to support anything that is a tradition and will therefore disagree with me on this . . . even when doing so flies in the face of logic.

The difference is not in logic.  The difference is in what the gain is.  You think it's very little, and other people value it very much.

People value lots of stupid things.  People valued tulips in the 1600s highly enough to trade a house for a few bulbs.  There is no gain in leaving flowers over the place a dead person is buried.  It doesn't help the dead person.  It's done entirely because 'tradition'.

I'm not a highly emotional type, but calling leaving flowers at a grave useless and only done because 'tradition' is stone cold man. Like funerals, it's not to be of a benefit to the deceased, but to the living.

Right.  But the only reason it benefits the living is because of tradition.  Tradition tells these people that they should do it, so they feel better doing it.  The actual action doesn't matter, just the fact that something is being done to mark the passage of a loved one.  If the traditions was different they would do something else and get the same comfort.

I wonder what idiot started that tradition.  He put flowers on a grave for absolutely no benefit.  Didn't make him feel better because it wasn't a tradition yet! 

[A Fella from Stella]

Is holding it so you can always have to poop at work unethical?  Could be viewed as stealing toilet paper, water, and time.

As a general rule, I don't hold in shit, piss or farts. However, when I was in a job where I had to account for my time in billable hours, I never went to the bathroom between tasks.

[A Fella from Stella]

Is holding it so you can always have to poop at work unethical?  Could be viewed as stealing toilet paper, water, and time.

Could be a huge problem if you are carpooling and traffic comes to a halt for an hour due to an accident occurring on your way to work.

Actually, pooping in someone else’s car on the way to work is a pretty good way to save time and money.

If there are windows that roll down, there's really no reason to poop in the car while commuting.

(Cautions should be exercised if the weather is sub-zero of course - both for the trajectory of frozen effluent ejected from the window and for the high risk of frostbite.)

Highlighted section, IMO, makes you a wordsmith of the highest order.

[A Fella from Stella]

As a writer myself, it's a bummer to see people ok with pirating books. There is a person or persons behind every thing out there that labored on the item you want. I feel this is a "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing. If you wouldn't work for free, why would you insist someone else work for free?

Please post a link to something you've written, if available.

What, and out themselves on an anonymous forum where they've shared their financial info?

To what purpose, please?

So that I can buy something they wrote.

[A Fella from Stella]

Using company gas for your car when you don't drive for the business.

Taking from someone's drink stash in the break room.

Walking into a nearby hotel like a guest, grabbing breakfast, a newspaper, and then coffee to go. If the maid's cart is in sight, a roll of TP and box of tissues for home.

While driving a rental car for work and using a corp CC, you can fill up your own car.

Going to the discounted/dented items section in the grocery store, taking the sticker off and putting it on another item (hello, $1 caviar!).

Calling you cell phone provider and saying you have no money, and need help. They will forgive that month.

Buying a transit pass and saying you're a senior citizen or a student when you're not.

Taking K-cups.

Buying an iPad for your business, returning it for cash, and then buying a Microsoft tablet for half the price. At tax time, you take the higher deduction.

[RWTL]

Using company gas for your car when you don't drive for the business.

Taking from someone's drink stash in the break room.

Walking into a nearby hotel like a guest, grabbing breakfast, a newspaper, and then coffee to go. If the maid's cart is in sight, a roll of TP and box of tissues for home.

While driving a rental car for work and using a corp CC, you can fill up your own car.

Going to the discounted/dented items section in the grocery store, taking the sticker off and putting it on another item (hello, $1 caviar!).

Calling you cell phone provider and saying you have no money, and need help. They will forgive that month.

Buying a transit pass and saying you're a senior citizen or a student when you're not.

Taking K-cups.

Buying an iPad for your business, returning it for cash, and then buying a Microsoft tablet for half the price. At tax time, you take the higher deduction.

Many of these business related items have moved past unethical into the illegal territory. 

[Missy B]

Seen on UK tv show.. a couple living in Brighton, England.
They installed a wishing fountain out the front of their property, on a busy seafront promenade.
Every morning he rakes out the excess coins for himself.
A bit unethical, but the general public are gullible.
Just gotta be sure its deep enough to stop bottom fishers.

What's unethical about this? isn't this how all wishing fountains work?

It's effing brilliant. If I had a yard...

[Chris Pascale]

Starting a business for the deduction, but with the intention of barley doing anything, so you can get the tax break for 2 years, then repeating the process.

For example, you'll have a car no matter what, right? Well, now you get a deduction.
You wanted to go to Hawaii, but hate paying full price, and aren't good with travel rewards, so you see there's a 2-day conference of some sort in town, so you go for 4 days.

[beltim]

Right.  But the only reason it benefits the living is because of tradition.  Tradition tells these people that they should do it, so they feel better doing it.  The actual action doesn't matter, just the fact that something is being done to mark the passage of a loved one.  If the traditions was different they would do something else and get the same comfort.

I wonder what idiot started that tradition.  He put flowers on a grave for absolutely no benefit.  Didn't make him feel better because it wasn't a tradition yet!

Dragoncar pointed out the absurdity of GuitarStv's totally unsupported statement better than I did, and much faster.  Well done, Dragoncar!