View Full Version : Drunk customers -is there such a thing as crossing the line
polecat
05-06-2004, 08:58 PM
I'm sorry I brought up the IQ thing. I wasn't trying to get into some intelligence discussion or to imply that a high IQ makes one more right or valid over a lower IQ. It's also only one measure of one type of intelligence. I was only trying to dispute polecat's implication that any failure to understand his post was because of poor reading comprehension, rather than a failure to explain himself clearly.
Funny.. Whenever a business card, salary level, number of degrees or test results are used to try and add leverage to a standpoint, it's almost always a clear sign of nothing more than "pissing contest"... as well as a fairly weak standpoint that can't stand on it's own. Maybe after I've had a few beers I might participate, but until then, I find them quite fruitless and instigating rolling of eyes moreso then whipping it out.
lestat1
05-06-2004, 10:51 PM
I'm sorry I brought up the IQ thing. I wasn't trying to get into some intelligence discussion or to imply that a high IQ makes one more right or valid over a lower IQ. It's also only one measure of one type of intelligence. I was only trying to dispute polecat's implication that any failure to understand his post was because of poor reading comprehension, rather than a failure to explain himself clearly.
Funny.. Whenever a business card, salary level, number of degrees or test results are used to try and add leverage to a standpoint, it's almost always a clear sign of nothing more than "pissing contest"... as well as a fairly weak standpoint that can't stand on it's own. Maybe after I've had a few beers I might participate, but until then, I find them quite fruitless and instigating rolling of eyes moreso then whipping it out.
I guess it's a good thing neither of us are doing that then, as I'd hate to upset you further. Perhaps I too, failed to communicate my idea properly, if "pissing contest" is all you gathered from my last post.
Can I take your continued posting as a sign that you are still willing to discuss it, or would you prefer it if I just drop the whole thing?
-lestat1
polecat
05-06-2004, 11:15 PM
Sure! Just as long as this fabled, assumed and wrongful "upset" hypothesis can go away, no problem. Entertained is the reality regardless of the continued harping. :rotfl:
lestat1
05-06-2004, 11:42 PM
Ok, can you elaborate on where the grey area is, between times you would intervene because you felt something was ethically wrong, and times you would avoid applying your personal ethical measuring stick to another's actions?
Since we don't know the specifics of the "drunk customer" situation, feel free to create hypotheticals. For an example...if you saw two (HOL) harmless old ladies (assume they are, in fact, harmless and not packing mace, guns, knives, explosives, a team of lawyers, etc.) in line at a grocery store, and the one paying drops a $10 on the ground without noticing, and the second HOL picks it up and pockets it, would you mention what you witnessed to anyone? (The cashier, the first old lady, etc.) You may assume that the two are not related, and the 2nd HOL is not picking it up "for her" but is in fact, pocketing it. You may also assume they are of similar socioeconomic status and neither is in more need of that $10 than the other (i.e. the $10 is not the final $10 the 2nd HOL needs for her new hip).
Or how about a coworker lying to your boss in such a way that the company is hurt a little and your coworker is helped a little, do you talk to your boss?
I'm also curious about a less tangible hypothetical, say needless emotional pain. A friend is about to marry someone whom you know is the wrong person for them, do you share your thoughts (i.e. the person cheated, or has lied to your friend about serious problems they have, etc.?
Hmmm, those last two are kind of incomplete, so feel free to add any needed details to make it a complete hypothetical that you can answer. Anyone else, feel free to create some hypotheticals. Lilith was dead on about them being much better to debate with than the incomplete story we started with.
-lestat1
polecat
05-07-2004, 01:19 AM
Those are all pretty good examples, lestat, but do indeed fall into the "5-page dissertation" due to various heuristics quite easily.
In the "Harmless Old Lady" example, it really comes down to a number of things, with the value of $10 being a big one. I mean, if one old lady drops a gum wrapper and the other picks it up and pockets it, there is very little argument for how "immoral" this would be, so it comes down to one's personal belief of the value of $10, and whether that would warrant any kind of action *IF* the subject witnessing has any form of conflict with said action of pocketing the money. Depending upon one's region, $10 = gum wrapper as far as tangible value. A $5 or $10 laying on the ground at a grocery store here will get kicked around the floor for hours before a panhandler finally grabs it when it makes it's way outside (keep in perspective an economic region where $2.37 for a gallon for gas and 1-bedroom studios go for $1000-$1200/mo rent). Accordingly, even the same defined *character* or morals system could behave totally differently depending upon way too many heuristics. One person with a set level of "morality" living in a region with X tangible value on the item could very easily behave totally differently (without any change in morals) living in a region where the same item has Y tangible value. This is the same reason why you see people with basically the same fundamental ideas arguing over a simple concept.
If you remove many of the conditions above that might vary wildly, and replace it with "something of decent, tangible value", a decision of pulling the "thief" aside to explain how she'd like it if she dropped something of "decent, tangible value" and it wasn't returned and hope for the best might become a valid answer... yet switch that to something of "largely tangible value", and it might become notifying the individual that dropped/lost the item as a more "ethical" answer. Where one sits on the fence on a number of things determines the proper behavior, and wildly varying approaches will occur EVEN if the same inherent principles exist between those arguing the stance.
Coworker/boss is the same exact thing. What's the loyalty to the company or the co-worker? What's the tangible value of the gain/loss for both? I mean, an employee taking a bottle of liquid paper home would fit this model. It's different from sabotaging the company network so as he/she can take a day off (and put 150 people out of work for a day). Way too many heuristics and specific personal value decisions to be made to present an accurate model of human behavior without 5-6 pages (likely loaded with lots of hyperbole fuzzing up the thing even more).
That's the problem with hypotheticals.. and why they always simply lead back to the "I like chocolate cake" to "what about stale chocolate cake?" kinds of things. It's lose-lose no matter how you approach it when being consumed by a wide range of people. It only leads to wrong assumptions of character.
Hope that makes sense! Cheers
lestat1
05-07-2004, 08:04 AM
That does make some sense, but it sounds like the "grey area" extends all the way to each end of the measuring stick, given the complexity and number of factors you'd take into consideration?
In a real-world situation, do you find you that have enough time to make a decision before the moment has passed? By the time both HOLs had paid for their groceries and left, I would be on page 2 (maybe page 3) of the 5-page dissertation in my head.
-lestat1
redhothoney
02-21-2007, 02:24 AM
I think it's wrong to take advantage of a man that is depressed. I don't care if he's f*ked up on all kinds of drugs, alcohol, whatever. Maybe he was desperate. We don't get paid to be counselors, but we are humans too. If your not in the mood to console a customer and ask for a reasonable amount of money then don't do it. There are some guys that are willing to pay for advice. It's all sad to me (on both ends).
xoxoGracexoxo
02-21-2007, 11:34 AM
In the original example, the dancer did something I myself probably wouldn't have done, although my motives would be mostly pragmatic. I hate dancing for drunks -- they're more likely to violate your personal space and more likely to "forget" to pay you.
Even worse, guys who are in emotionally vulnerable states get wierd with dancers. I once danced for a guy who had literally just asked his wife for a divorce that evening before coming to the club. He wasn't drunk, but he was in a fragile state. I didn't feel like I "took advantage" of him by dancing -- after all, he was in the strip club because he wanted dances -- but after that evening he did fixate on me to a frightening degree, begging me to marry him, telling me we'd have beautiful children, etc.
I've danced for guys who were definitely too drunk to be making rational decisions, and I've danced for guys with very low self-esteem and emotional problems. They're not my favorite customers, but they are customers. They're adults, they came to the club voluntarily, and presumably they're getting what they want, or they would leave.
Who's to say that the guy in the original example "got screwed"? How do you know he didn't get exactly what he wanted? A pretty girl sat with him for a while and told him she loved him. It's what he was asking for. Who are we to decide what he "really" needed?
Again, I would probably have steered very clear of this customer. I've *never* told a customer that I loved them, and I think it's a really risky thing to do. But if another girl wants to take that risk, I'm not likely to feel it's my place to intervene, or even judge her.
austinatalie
02-21-2007, 04:19 PM
wow, this post is almost 3 years old!
where'd you find it, redhothoney?
casaubon1
02-21-2007, 08:39 PM
And equally important, WHY did you find it? This thread has got to be an all-time SW low . . .