Walmart - Company Run By Morons for My Benefit

[Elok]

KH, I maintain a fair amount of impulse control while drunk as well (believe it or not, I drink too). But that's just me. I don't start picking fights, or losing my temper, or crying, or anything like that, but I've known people who do when they're hammered. I have a friend who's quite calm and easygoing while sober but turns violent and crazy when he's tanked (which is why I've tried to convince him to stop drinking). Different people are different kinds of drunks.

And it may be overplayed as an excuse, but it still has some authority. We all have urges to do things that get overridden by one inhibition or another. Sometimes that inhibition is needless social anxiety (which is one reason why drinking can be fun), and sometimes it's common sense (which is one reason why drinking can be dangerous). Common sense is the kind of voice in your head that says, "yes, it's funny, and it makes you feel really hot, to jiggle your bare funbags for a camera, but that's exactly the sort of thing that comes back to haunt you later." Are you honestly telling me that you think the majority of those girls would still be doing all that crap on camera if they were stone-cold sober?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by C0ckney


it's not a question of benefit, it's a question of taking or gaining something (either a thing, or a pecuniary advantage), to which you have no right.

put simply, the difference between the two is the act of taking (or appropriation) of the item.

if david had walked in, put the ipod in his pocket and walked out, then he would have committed theft, as it stands he has committed fraud. in the first case he would have dishonestly appropriated the ipod without consent. what he has actually done is obtained the item with the consent of the store, but has done so through his dishonesty.

if he had done this here, he would of committed an offence of obtaining property by deception, which as aside, is found in the theft act.

My question was badly worded then as you do not answer my question. Is fraud a subset of theft by definition? i.e. You can't commit fraud without commiting theft. By common usage you can, but can you by legal definition?

If I deceived someone but did not gain anything, but caused harm to the deceived, I can be considered to have committed fraud, for example. Theft implies taking, or appropriating, something for yourself or your associates, however.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I also think you're overestimating the level of drunkenness of most of the girls in it. I've never actually seen one, but the commercials show girls who are still able to move intelligibly and who aren't actively puking. Anybody with enough sense to stand straight without falling over should have enough sense not to sign if they don't want their image on tape.

Drunkenness is overrated as an excuse. As somebody who has been drunk enough times to speak with some authority on this, you really do retain control of your impulses for much longer than some would have you believe. You might fray a little bit around the edges, but I'm tired of hearing people blame everything on the booze. The vast majority of those girls want to be on camera. I'd say that even the majority of the ones who complain later wanted to be on camera and later changed their minds. GGW of course has a responsibility to verify ages etc., but I don't see their average girls as anything approaching avictim.

I agree, I think a lot of people are using drunkness as in excuse. Like, oh, I did that but I was drunk. Really they are just using alcohol as an enabler, and are in control.

I know that I have drank to silly amounts of excess. And I never would go against my principles. Now I might be easy to be pulled along with something, because while I might say no I wouldn't have much struggle in me (this is the reason why Date Rape is real), but my choices are my own.

Now yes, there are inhibitions. And people who want to do stupid things, but their brain tells them not to can decide to do the stupid things when they aren't tihnking clearly. But they are still deciding to do that stupid thing. If you decide not to do that stupid thing, you won't do it.

The same is true of peer pressure, actually.

JM

[Jon Miller]

As an example (and like the third time I got crazy ****house drunk):

I ahd been talking to my freinds for a while and said that I could eat a whole ice cream cake. We had been talking about it all week, and were going to do it at the party me and my frenids were throwing that Friday. On the day of, though, I heard doubts expressed about doing it that day so ate a large meal.

In the evening though, I was really hammered. And so people suggested it again, and I was like "I know that this is probably stupid because I have ate and drank a ton today, but sure, let's do this" (paraphrase). Note that I can't blame this on alcohol, it was something I wanted to do anyways.

So we got the cake, and I started eating it. Now one of the girls started saying that I was going to kill myself by eating too much or getting too much surgar or something. I said no way, I was going to eat the cake, and licked it all to claim it. (I was really drunk at this time) She was still wanting to 'save me' and grabbed the cake. I didn't realise what had gone on until she had left the room. This is an example of alcohol taking the struggle out of someone, note that I didn't decide to give her the cake, or even agree with it, but I was too drunk to adequately defend it. Someone at a similiar level of drunk could easily be date raped I think.

Other the other hand, I don't 'grab' girls or do other such things to girls I am not dating/etc (especially not to girls who don't want me to). As such, even when encouarged to do so, I choose not to. Doesn't matter on the state of drunkness.

So yeah, a girl can be date raped. The girls in Girls Gone Wild are doing what they are doing because they want to.

Jon Miller

[Elok]

Yes, but I'm saying, don't generalize from your particular case to "how drunks act." Also, bear in mind that women get drunk more easily than men, for a variety of reasons. And as your cake example demonstrated, alcohol can override the part of your brain that says "...but I really shouldn't," leaving "hey, that sounds fun" free rein. You were prevented from trying to shove the whole damned thing down your throat only by having it physically taken from you, right?

[Jon Miller]

But it wouldn't have been that bad to eat it all (or attempt to). I would probably have just gotten sick, which I think I did anyways from all the alcohol.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Basically, it wasn't a good idea. But it wasn't a good idea that I wanted to do. If I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't have.

And yes, girls do get drunk faster.

JM

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Dauphin

My question was badly worded then as you do not answer my question. Is fraud a subset of theft by definition? i.e. You can't commit fraud without commiting theft. By common usage you can, but can you by legal definition?

some 'fraud' offences are contained within the theft act, but there are a huge numbers of ways you can committ fraud. many of these are for quite specific situations and have seperate laws covering them.

some 'fraud' offences are contained within the theft act, but there are a huge numbers of ways you can commit fraud. many of these are for quite specific situations and have separate laws covering them.

the offence of theft itself is defined as "dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it." appropriating doesn't just mean physical taking, but rather assuming the rights over some item of property.

in short, you can commit a fraud offence without committing theft, although of course the two will often overlap. the offences though are designed to cover different situations.

If I deceived someone but did not gain anything, but caused harm to the deceived, I can be considered to have committed fraud, for example. Theft implies taking, or appropriating, something for yourself or your associates, however.

for theft act fraud offences, generally you must gain something, either property or a pecuniary advantage, through your deception.

in the situation you describe, it depends what type of harm you cause, who you are and in what capacity you are acting. in some circumstances you may commit a criminal act, in others, you would commit a civil wrong.

[Dauphin]

BTW, did I say I worked at the Fraud Office?

There are cases where the fraud is committed for the purpose of money laundering, whereby it is expected for the perpetrator of fraud to lose money, but the money is clean when it comes out, hence the reason for doing it. I find it hard to consider it theft, but it may be considered so by the legal definition.

[Elok]

For an example of fraud which is actually funny, google "Anus Laptops," with quotes included. It's a long, long, long story, but hysterically funny all the same.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by Elok
For an example of fraud which is actually funny, google "Anus Laptops," with quotes included. It's a long, long, long story, but hysterically funny all the same.

Hey, why with quotes incl--AUGUGGGHGGGHHHHHHH

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Dauphin
BTW, did I say I worked at the Fraud Office?

There are cases where the fraud is committed for the purpose of money laundering, whereby it is expected for the perpetrator of fraud to lose money, but the money is clean when it comes out, hence the reason for doing it. I find it hard to consider it theft, but it may be considered so by the legal definition.

Hello. I catch money launderers and fraudsters for a job.

In money laundering, the launderers are expecting to gain a financial advantage through funds they have no legal entitlement too. Therefore even though they lose some along the way, they are still gaining an overall pecuniary advantage through deception. It would still fall under the fraud categories of the Theft Act and under common law, but as there is specific anti-money laundering legislation, there's no need to follow that course.

[TCO]

Regardless of whether Wal-mart gets compensated by Apple, it was a fraud by Dave. For one thing he didn't know and still doesn't if Wal-mart will be compensated (perhaps...rationally...Apple will not allow the credit given that there is no proof of where the unit was purchased). For another thing, it is still a fraud even if Apple pays the charge, since the return policy (of Apple's) for the channel management was not followed.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Hello. I catch money launderers and fraudsters for a job.

Hello to you too. I investigate money launderers and fraudsters for a job aswell.

All I want to know is can you commit a fraud without commiting theft. No-one has yet given me a straight answer. Can you?

If I give away counterfeit money to a person I don't like, with the hope of them getting caught using it, then I am commiting a deception. It is a fraudulent act. It is not, however a theft. In laymans terms that is. But what about the legal status?

You would cover it under other laws no doubt, but that's not my question.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Elok
I wasn't condemning pornography per se, I was just pointing out that GGW isn't comparable to something used for humor value. People don't watch it for laughs afaik; so, Mrs. Tubes' analogy is flawed.

I suppose I may be overanalyzing, but I consider GGW unethical just because the guy who makes them is unethical. Getting women, sometimes even underaged girls, drunk so they'll let you film them naked is sleazy in the extreme. And whacking off to those things knowing that many of the subjects were taken advantage of is in bad taste, to say the very least.

My analogy is flawed how?? how many idots buy this video to watch tits and ass and cheer and laugh? I amnot sure what ur idea of entertainment is but when u got a group of folks watchin a video and they are cheering and laughing or even crying id call that entertaiment. Like i said i dont knwo what ur id of entertainment is. GGW as u call it is sold for entertainment cause i now it aint sold for education purposes. I havent read this thread in 2 days and i doubt i am gonna go back so this is the last im gonna say.